Hannah Graham - what's the latest?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
WTF are you talking about?
Race is totally irrelevant.
I didn't say anything about him not deserving representation based on the way our justice system is set up.
I said, ONCE AGAIN, that if evidence comes to light, as it's looking like it will, that proves his monstrous acts, that a person who defends him must be lacking in morality. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

Ah, okay, so you believe in the American judicial system, but the players who actually make it work have no morals. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the bottom of this article in the comments section on poster claims that she knew Jesse Matthew and his father was alcoholic who beat him. Who knows but I imagine he was probably abused in some way to turn into such a monster. Dad should join his son in jail.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/neighbors-of-jesse-matthews-mother-speak-out-about-multiple-investigations/29263116?item=1

It's probably violence passed down through the generations. It's what they know and experience.

Be careful that you are not slandering the dad by repeating unproven gossip.

The son will do plenty of shaming just by being himself. No need to worry about slandering dear ol dad.

If this is true, the tragedy is exponential. So very sad. I'm sure will be used by defense attorney, again, if true.

So if his dad was an alcoholic and beat him, it excuses him raping and murdering people?

Whoever defends this guy is slime. Is his original attorney still with him, anyone know?

Shut your ignorant mouth. The right to representation belongs to everyone, not just innocent people. That is one of the bedrock principles of this country and what sets the US apart from a lot of other places. It's easy to represent those to have virtue; it's much harder to do what his attorney will have to do. And while I could not be a criminal defense attorney, I'm glad there people who are. Because, everyone gets the chance to put the state to prove their case. And that is absolutely as it should be. You want to be a proud American? You should be proud of this part of it.

+1

+2

+3

+ another one. This is one of the touchstones of our country's principles, and how the justice system functions. In no way does having an attorney diminish a criminal's penalty. If you want him to NOT have an attorney, or if you think all attorneys who are good people should decline to represent guilty people, you should consider moving to a place where they still stone people to death.

If he is prove guilty via forensics then yes, I think an attorney who attempts to get him a lesser sentence in exchange for money and publicity I'd despicable. I'm not saying he doesn't have the RIGHT to an attorney.

NP here. Are you really this clueless? Do you not understand how the criminal justice system works? And that it works that way to protect people from being wrongly convicted. You don't just get a hit on DNA and have the right to lock someone up. There are all sorts of things wrong with that 1) how do you make sure that the DNA is not contaminated? 2) how do you make sure that there isn't an innocent explanation? That's what a trial is for and he absolutely has the right to a trial and until that occurs he is innocent until proven guilty as much as you have already sentenced him. I for one am very happy to have this kind of legal system here and you should be too in case you ever get arrested for a crime -- whether you did or did not do it. It's not just about getting him a lesser sentence it's about making sure that justice is served fairly and without prejudice.

Fairfax rape and Morgan Harrington's killer were linked by DNA before Hannah went missing, before JM was even a suspect. Obviously, JM has a right to representation and a right to a fair trial...but....

Exactly. And someone will be defending him, KNOWING he stalked, raped and murdered those girls.

You don't KNOW much of this yet. That's why there needs to be a trial. But I guess you just think that anyone accused of murder should be thrown to the lions? What about rape? Sexual assault? Now what about burglary? What about embezzlement? What about a bar fight? A guy who's being mugged who fights back then gets accused of assault himself? What about the person who looks like the suspect in a crime and is identified by a witness, but who wasn't actually there? What about the guy whose DNA is all over the crime scene because he was dating the victim, but he was hundreds of miles away when she died? What about the guy whose "friend" said was at the crime scene, because he wanted to get back at him?

We need a trial. And he needs a competent lawyer to defend him. It's the bedrock of our democracy.

Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you not know anything about this particular case?

I'm not the PP, but you are the one who seems obtuse. You seem to think that some criminals don't deserve representation because of the heinousness of their crimes. And that's not the way that the judicial process works, nor is it supposed to. There's a reason that Lady Justice is shown as being blindfolded.

You seem concerned that a black man is going to get off lightly for raping and killing white women in Virginia. I don't think you have anything to fear on that front.

WTF are you talking about?
Race is totally irrelevant.
I didn't say anything about him not deserving representation based on the way our justice system is set up.
I said, ONCE AGAIN, that if evidence comes to light, as it's looking like it will, that proves his monstrous acts, that a person who defends him must be lacking in morality. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

NP. You are a reductionist simpleton.

Good one!

You don't have 1/4 of the integrity, grit or intelligence needed to follow the principles of the justice system, unless the circumstances align with your moral compass. That's OK. Most people aren't that creative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the bottom of this article in the comments section on poster claims that she knew Jesse Matthew and his father was alcoholic who beat him. Who knows but I imagine he was probably abused in some way to turn into such a monster. Dad should join his son in jail.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/neighbors-of-jesse-matthews-mother-speak-out-about-multiple-investigations/29263116?item=1

It's probably violence passed down through the generations. It's what they know and experience.

Be careful that you are not slandering the dad by repeating unproven gossip.

The son will do plenty of shaming just by being himself. No need to worry about slandering dear ol dad.

If this is true, the tragedy is exponential. So very sad. I'm sure will be used by defense attorney, again, if true.

So if his dad was an alcoholic and beat him, it excuses him raping and murdering people?

Whoever defends this guy is slime. Is his original attorney still with him, anyone know?

Shut your ignorant mouth. The right to representation belongs to everyone, not just innocent people. That is one of the bedrock principles of this country and what sets the US apart from a lot of other places. It's easy to represent those to have virtue; it's much harder to do what his attorney will have to do. And while I could not be a criminal defense attorney, I'm glad there people who are. Because, everyone gets the chance to put the state to prove their case. And that is absolutely as it should be. You want to be a proud American? You should be proud of this part of it.

+1

+2

+3

+ another one. This is one of the touchstones of our country's principles, and how the justice system functions. In no way does having an attorney diminish a criminal's penalty. If you want him to NOT have an attorney, or if you think all attorneys who are good people should decline to represent guilty people, you should consider moving to a place where they still stone people to death.

If he is prove guilty via forensics then yes, I think an attorney who attempts to get him a lesser sentence in exchange for money and publicity I'd despicable. I'm not saying he doesn't have the RIGHT to an attorney.

NP here. Are you really this clueless? Do you not understand how the criminal justice system works? And that it works that way to protect people from being wrongly convicted. You don't just get a hit on DNA and have the right to lock someone up. There are all sorts of things wrong with that 1) how do you make sure that the DNA is not contaminated? 2) how do you make sure that there isn't an innocent explanation? That's what a trial is for and he absolutely has the right to a trial and until that occurs he is innocent until proven guilty as much as you have already sentenced him. I for one am very happy to have this kind of legal system here and you should be too in case you ever get arrested for a crime -- whether you did or did not do it. It's not just about getting him a lesser sentence it's about making sure that justice is served fairly and without prejudice.

Fairfax rape and Morgan Harrington's killer were linked by DNA before Hannah went missing, before JM was even a suspect. Obviously, JM has a right to representation and a right to a fair trial...but....

Exactly. And someone will be defending him, KNOWING he stalked, raped and murdered those girls.

You don't KNOW much of this yet. That's why there needs to be a trial. But I guess you just think that anyone accused of murder should be thrown to the lions? What about rape? Sexual assault? Now what about burglary? What about embezzlement? What about a bar fight? A guy who's being mugged who fights back then gets accused of assault himself? What about the person who looks like the suspect in a crime and is identified by a witness, but who wasn't actually there? What about the guy whose DNA is all over the crime scene because he was dating the victim, but he was hundreds of miles away when she died? What about the guy whose "friend" said was at the crime scene, because he wanted to get back at him?

We need a trial. And he needs a competent lawyer to defend him. It's the bedrock of our democracy.

Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you not know anything about this particular case?

I'm not the PP, but you are the one who seems obtuse. You seem to think that some criminals don't deserve representation because of the heinousness of their crimes. And that's not the way that the judicial process works, nor is it supposed to. There's a reason that Lady Justice is shown as being blindfolded.

You seem concerned that a black man is going to get off lightly for raping and killing white women in Virginia. I don't think you have anything to fear on that front.

WTF are you talking about?
Race is totally irrelevant.
I didn't say anything about him not deserving representation based on the way our justice system is set up.
I said, ONCE AGAIN, that if evidence comes to light, as it's looking like it will, that proves his monstrous acts, that a person who defends him must be lacking in morality. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

NP. You are a reductionist simpleton.

Good one!

You don't have 1/4 of the integrity, grit or intelligence needed to follow the principles of the justice system, unless the circumstances align with your moral compass. That's OK. Most people aren't that creative.

Whatever, I'm done here. I've made my point many times - it's a very simple one. Feel free to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the bottom of this article in the comments section on poster claims that she knew Jesse Matthew and his father was alcoholic who beat him. Who knows but I imagine he was probably abused in some way to turn into such a monster. Dad should join his son in jail.

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/neighbors-of-jesse-matthews-mother-speak-out-about-multiple-investigations/29263116?item=1

It's probably violence passed down through the generations. It's what they know and experience.

Be careful that you are not slandering the dad by repeating unproven gossip.

The son will do plenty of shaming just by being himself. No need to worry about slandering dear ol dad.

If this is true, the tragedy is exponential. So very sad. I'm sure will be used by defense attorney, again, if true.

So if his dad was an alcoholic and beat him, it excuses him raping and murdering people?

Whoever defends this guy is slime. Is his original attorney still with him, anyone know?

Shut your ignorant mouth. The right to representation belongs to everyone, not just innocent people. That is one of the bedrock principles of this country and what sets the US apart from a lot of other places. It's easy to represent those to have virtue; it's much harder to do what his attorney will have to do. And while I could not be a criminal defense attorney, I'm glad there people who are. Because, everyone gets the chance to put the state to prove their case. And that is absolutely as it should be. You want to be a proud American? You should be proud of this part of it.

+1

+2

+3

+ another one. This is one of the touchstones of our country's principles, and how the justice system functions. In no way does having an attorney diminish a criminal's penalty. If you want him to NOT have an attorney, or if you think all attorneys who are good people should decline to represent guilty people, you should consider moving to a place where they still stone people to death.

If he is prove guilty via forensics then yes, I think an attorney who attempts to get him a lesser sentence in exchange for money and publicity I'd despicable. I'm not saying he doesn't have the RIGHT to an attorney.

NP here. Are you really this clueless? Do you not understand how the criminal justice system works? And that it works that way to protect people from being wrongly convicted. You don't just get a hit on DNA and have the right to lock someone up. There are all sorts of things wrong with that 1) how do you make sure that the DNA is not contaminated? 2) how do you make sure that there isn't an innocent explanation? That's what a trial is for and he absolutely has the right to a trial and until that occurs he is innocent until proven guilty as much as you have already sentenced him. I for one am very happy to have this kind of legal system here and you should be too in case you ever get arrested for a crime -- whether you did or did not do it. It's not just about getting him a lesser sentence it's about making sure that justice is served fairly and without prejudice.

Fairfax rape and Morgan Harrington's killer were linked by DNA before Hannah went missing, before JM was even a suspect. Obviously, JM has a right to representation and a right to a fair trial...but....

Exactly. And someone will be defending him, KNOWING he stalked, raped and murdered those girls.

You don't KNOW much of this yet. That's why there needs to be a trial. But I guess you just think that anyone accused of murder should be thrown to the lions? What about rape? Sexual assault? Now what about burglary? What about embezzlement? What about a bar fight? A guy who's being mugged who fights back then gets accused of assault himself? What about the person who looks like the suspect in a crime and is identified by a witness, but who wasn't actually there? What about the guy whose DNA is all over the crime scene because he was dating the victim, but he was hundreds of miles away when she died? What about the guy whose "friend" said was at the crime scene, because he wanted to get back at him?

We need a trial. And he needs a competent lawyer to defend him. It's the bedrock of our democracy.

Are you intentionally being obtuse or do you not know anything about this particular case?

I'm not the PP, but you are the one who seems obtuse. You seem to think that some criminals don't deserve representation because of the heinousness of their crimes. And that's not the way that the judicial process works, nor is it supposed to. There's a reason that Lady Justice is shown as being blindfolded.

You seem concerned that a black man is going to get off lightly for raping and killing white women in Virginia. I don't think you have anything to fear on that front.

WTF are you talking about?
Race is totally irrelevant.
I didn't say anything about him not deserving representation based on the way our justice system is set up.
I said, ONCE AGAIN, that if evidence comes to light, as it's looking like it will, that proves his monstrous acts, that a person who defends him must be lacking in morality. Not sure how to make it any clearer.

NP. You are a reductionist simpleton.

Good one!

You don't have 1/4 of the integrity, grit or intelligence needed to follow the principles of the justice system, unless the circumstances align with your moral compass. That's OK. Most people aren't that creative.

Whatever, I'm done here. I've made my point many times - it's a very simple one. Feel free to disagree.

And also not a very good one. But run away simpleton. You're point has run its course.

[Anonymous]

I bet even HG's parents want JM's atty to do a good job. They want to know FOR SURE that this guy is guilty and that he is legitimately incarcerated or punished with death (if that becomes relevant). They don't want to go through a second trial b/c defense atty did a poor job. Just b/c his atty defends him to the fullest extent of the law does not mean that atty actually believes JM is innocent. I used to work for the defense atty (when he was the commonwealth's atty) and I'm pretty sure he is no bleeding heart liberal. What he believes personally is not relevant to the job he has agreed to do.

He will provide the best defense he can for the accused, but that doesn't necessarily mean he intends to get JM off and walking free. The defense atty still has to work with facts and proof... and he has the job of making sure the prosecutor doesn't take short cuts. (that should be important to ALL of us).

Sometimes the "best" defense means that he works out the best deal (i.e. maybe no death penalty, maybe JM pleads to certain crimes and not others that are harder for the prosecutor to prove; maybe it means making sure JM's mental health or childhood is considered in sentencing). There's a lot of gray area to work with in defending JM... it's not death vs. walk free. The defense atty has to push the prosecutor to do his/her job well... and put up JM's version of a defense... the jury/judge don't have to buy it. Defense atty (on behalf of JM) simply has to put it out there as a possible reason for doubting the prosecution's story.

If you can't handle this version of justice, I suggest you move to France or Great Britain, or another country that has a more inquisition style of justice rather than an adversarial style. It's our constitution, people. Love it or leave it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet even HG's parents want JM's atty to do a good job. They want to know FOR SURE that this guy is guilty and that he is legitimately incarcerated or punished with death (if that becomes relevant). They don't want to go through a second trial b/c defense atty did a poor job. Just b/c his atty defends him to the fullest extent of the law does not mean that atty actually believes JM is innocent. I used to work for the defense atty (when he was the commonwealth's atty) and I'm pretty sure he is no bleeding heart liberal. What he believes personally is not relevant to the job he has agreed to do.

He will provide the best defense he can for the accused, but that doesn't necessarily mean he intends to get JM off and walking free. The defense atty still has to work with facts and proof... and he has the job of making sure the prosecutor doesn't take short cuts. (that should be important to ALL of us).

Sometimes the "best" defense means that he works out the best deal (i.e. maybe no death penalty, maybe JM pleads to certain crimes and not others that are harder for the prosecutor to prove; maybe it means making sure JM's mental health or childhood is considered in sentencing). There's a lot of gray area to work with in defending JM... it's not death vs. walk free. The defense atty has to push the prosecutor to do his/her job well... and put up JM's version of a defense... the jury/judge don't have to buy it. Defense atty (on behalf of JM) simply has to put it out there as a possible reason for doubting the prosecution's story.

If you can't handle this version of justice, I suggest you move to France or Great Britain, or another country that has a more inquisition style of justice rather than an adversarial style. It's our constitution, people. Love it or leave it!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet even HG's parents want JM's atty to do a good job. They want to know FOR SURE that this guy is guilty and that he is legitimately incarcerated or punished with death (if that becomes relevant). They don't want to go through a second trial b/c defense atty did a poor job. Just b/c his atty defends him to the fullest extent of the law does not mean that atty actually believes JM is innocent. I used to work for the defense atty (when he was the commonwealth's atty) and I'm pretty sure he is no bleeding heart liberal. What he believes personally is not relevant to the job he has agreed to do.

He will provide the best defense he can for the accused, but that doesn't necessarily mean he intends to get JM off and walking free. The defense atty still has to work with facts and proof... and he has the job of making sure the prosecutor doesn't take short cuts. (that should be important to ALL of us).

Sometimes the "best" defense means that he works out the best deal (i.e. maybe no death penalty, maybe JM pleads to certain crimes and not others that are harder for the prosecutor to prove; maybe it means making sure JM's mental health or childhood is considered in sentencing). There's a lot of gray area to work with in defending JM... it's not death vs. walk free. The defense atty has to push the prosecutor to do his/her job well... and put up JM's version of a defense... the jury/judge don't have to buy it. Defense atty (on behalf of JM) simply has to put it out there as a possible reason for doubting the prosecution's story.

If you can't handle this version of justice, I suggest you move to France or Great Britain, or another country that has a more inquisition style of justice rather than an adversarial style. It's our constitution, people. Love it or leave it!

+1

+2. Preach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet even HG's parents want JM's atty to do a good job. They want to know FOR SURE that this guy is guilty and that he is legitimately incarcerated or punished with death (if that becomes relevant). They don't want to go through a second trial b/c defense atty did a poor job. Just b/c his atty defends him to the fullest extent of the law does not mean that atty actually believes JM is innocent. I used to work for the defense atty (when he was the commonwealth's atty) and I'm pretty sure he is no bleeding heart liberal. What he believes personally is not relevant to the job he has agreed to do.

He will provide the best defense he can for the accused, but that doesn't necessarily mean he intends to get JM off and walking free. The defense atty still has to work with facts and proof... and he has the job of making sure the prosecutor doesn't take short cuts. (that should be important to ALL of us).

Sometimes the "best" defense means that he works out the best deal (i.e. maybe no death penalty, maybe JM pleads to certain crimes and not others that are harder for the prosecutor to prove; maybe it means making sure JM's mental health or childhood is considered in sentencing). There's a lot of gray area to work with in defending JM... it's not death vs. walk free. The defense atty has to push the prosecutor to do his/her job well... and put up JM's version of a defense... the jury/judge don't have to buy it. Defense atty (on behalf of JM) simply has to put it out there as a possible reason for doubting the prosecution's story.

If you can't handle this version of justice, I suggest you move to France or Great Britain, or another country that has a more inquisition style of justice rather than an adversarial style. It's our constitution, people. Love it or leave it!

Actually, the French and British legal systems are superior to ours. Thanks fortune jingoism, though.

[Anonymous]

Commonwealth not revealing cause of death:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/hannah-graham-cause-of-death-determined/2014/11/18/2810156c-6f37-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Commonwealth not revealing cause of death:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/hannah-graham-cause-of-death-determined/2014/11/18/2810156c-6f37-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz&wpmm=1

Makes sense. I agree with the decision until he's found guilty and sentenced.

[Anonymous]

Virginia charges suspect with first degree murder and abduction:
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Jesse-Matthew-Murder-Hannah-Graham-UVA-Charlottesville-Morgan-Graham-Kidnap-291347461.html

[Anonymous]

Now a capital case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/jesse-matthew-to-face-capital-murder-charges-in-u-va-sophomores-death/2015/05/05/0cde5b46-f33f-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html

[Anonymous]

Suspect in Hannah Graham case sentenced to life in prison for attack in Fairfax:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/jesse-matthew-to-be-sentenced-in-brutal-attack-on-woman-in-fairfax/2015/10/01/39bd9114-685f-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz