Anonymous wrote:They've got an awful lot on this guy - he's been forensically linked to at least 3 victims (Hannah, ffx rape victim, Morgan Harrington). He isn't getting out of jail.

Eventually he'll figure that out and maybe he'll start talking - telling police how he got away with what he did for years and more of the details..

Of what benefit would talking to the police be to him?

The State would have to put something on the table during plea negociations.

At this point, the only thing I can think of for the state to offer would be a promise not to seek the death penalty. And it is probably too early for that.

My guess - there is no forensic evidence in the Graham case and the other forensic/DNA evidence isn't very solid or it's that there was unaccounted for DNA in those cases and they are just hoping to pin it on him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't he been charged in Harrington's death if they have DNA evidence linking him to her death?

I'm curious about this too.

The DA's office is probably putting their case together now - making sure they don't let anything slip. Also, just letting him sit in jail as long as they can without charging him - drawing it out - probably adds pressure to him to talk.

They've got an awful lot on this guy - he's been forensically linked to at least 3 victims (Hannah, ffx rape victim, Morgan Harrington). He isn't getting out of jail.

Eventually he'll figure that out and maybe he'll start talking - telling police how he got away with what he did for years and more of the details..

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't he been charged in Harrington's death if they have DNA evidence linking him to her death?

Bingo! You are not supposed to ask these questions when most on this forum - and other forums - already have the suspect tried and convicted.

If these posters are representative of the jury pool, the suspect has no chance whether a body is found or not.

Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't he been charged in Harrington's death if they have DNA evidence linking him to her death?

I'm curious about this too.

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone clear that it's actually DNA evidence linking him to Morgan Harrington and not just "forensic" evidence? Forensic evidence covers a lot of things and can be a lot less cut and dry than DNA evidence.

Again - the state isn't saying much.

And while DNA is great, it is not always 100%, plus it is expensive to present to jury - usually involving battling expert witnesses who must be paid.

Is anyone clear that it's actually DNA evidence linking him to Morgan Harrington and not just "forensic" evidence? Forensic evidence covers a lot of things and can be a lot less cut and dry than DNA evidence.

Why hasn't he been charged in Harrington's death if they have DNA evidence linking him to her death?

Not quite that simple. The state isn't saying much.

But it is looking more like they have forensic evidence linking him to at least one murder and at least one rape.

That does not mean DNA evidence - but its quite possible that is what they have.

Probably too early for the state to put the death penalty on the table in a plea deal.

And, (sadly) it is probably too late for the state to believe they have any chance of getting Hannah back alive.

The passage of time makes info about Hannah's location from MJ less valuable to the state. And if she is dead, then MJ must be hopping they do not find her body because it can only strengthen the state's evidentiary case against him.

This whole case is really upsetting - especially considering how long that a murderer/rapist (whoever that's proven to be) was on the loose in our area - it least between 2005 and 2009 when Morgan disappeared.

Waterboard him

If he doesn't do a deal, he's as good as executed and his family had better start thinking about a cemetery plot soon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they get Mathew to talk? Surely they could offer something to help him decide to tell what he knows?
He's in BIG trouble - he surely knows by now that he's totally fucked - wouldn't he want to do something to unfuck himself, even if only slightly?

Sorry if this is a dumb question. I just don't get this part.

He is probably not talking under advice from his attorney, that's my guess. He can be charged with murder but a prosecutor would know that it would be extremely difficult to get a jury to convict him without a body. If you look at it from a completely objective way, he would be fucking himself over if he said anything before they found her body because he knows there is a chance he may never be charged with murder if they don't find her. They may also be waiting to see what evidence they have connecting him to the other disappearances too, in order to better negotiate a plea. Who knows really, the hearing isn't until December so hopefully there is some progress made before then.

People have been charged - and convicted - of murder based on circumstantial evidence only, without a body. In such a high-profile case it definitely can be done.

Especially when his DNA is mixed up in multiple crime scenes that have no other apparent connection other than he.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can't they get Mathew to talk? Surely they could offer something to help him decide to tell what he knows?
He's in BIG trouble - he surely knows by now that he's totally fucked - wouldn't he want to do something to unfuck himself, even if only slightly?

Sorry if this is a dumb question. I just don't get this part.

He is probably not talking under advice from his attorney, that's my guess. He can be charged with murder but a prosecutor would know that it would be extremely difficult to get a jury to convict him without a body. If you look at it from a completely objective way, he would be fucking himself over if he said anything before they found her body because he knows there is a chance he may never be charged with murder if they don't find her. They may also be waiting to see what evidence they have connecting him to the other disappearances too, in order to better negotiate a plea. Who knows really, the hearing isn't until December so hopefully there is some progress made before then.

People have been charged - and convicted - of murder based on circumstantial evidence only, without a body. In such a high-profile case it definitely can be done.

He has a better chance of being found not guility without him talking. At very least, the charges are easier to defend.

Many killers never talk.