Anonymous wrote:Why hasn't he been charged in Harrington's death if they have DNA evidence linking him to her death?
There's no rush. MH is dead and JM isn't going anywhere. The Commonwealth's Atty probably doesn't want to make public whatever evidence they have linking JM to MH b/c info. in the public can skew the info. that might come in about HG's case. They don't want to bring all kinds of nuts out who may give false leads or even force the investigation re: HG a certain direction. If JM is sitting in jail, the Commwealth's atty has no reason to tip its hand to the public (even though we are all curious to know what they have). There is not a TRIAL in Dec. -- it's a preliminary hearing. We will hear SOME of what the C.A. has connecting JM to HG and probably to MH.
Re: the forensic evidence connecting JM to MH.... since MH was found in a skelontonized state, the forensic evidence (I've heard it's been confirmed to be DNA) would have to be either hair (perhaps MH's found in JM's car if he had the same car in 2009 or mixed into her clothing) or blood/saliva/fluids left on her clothing. That clothing could have been something found with the skeleton, OR it could have been on her shirt that was found in C'ville (not near the body). If the DNA was on her shirt -- a defendant might say (though his atty and expert witnesses) that his DNA was on the shirt b/c he is the one who happened to pick it up and lay it on a bush having no idea that it belonged to a murder victim. If the DNA was found on clothing with the skeleton or in his car -- well, then he's going to have a much harder time countering that. But, even then, he could say he hooked up with this girl outside of the concert or he gave her a ride (depending on the type of forensic evidence --i.e. a hair in his car or was there semen on her clothes??).
DNA doesn't mean he killed her -- but it means these two people were together at some time.
Now -- of course I believe he is guilty. He has a history of raping at two colleges (which probably won't be allowed in court). And if they do, in fact, have DNA connecting him to MH + the Fairfax City rape + HG ---- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. BUT, it takes a lot to PROVE in court that he raped and killed MH and the same with HG. The easiest one to prove could be the Fairfax City rape b/c we have a living victim and a witness to the assault. The victim can testify that her interactions with JM were not consensual. With MH and HG -- they aren't around to counter any defense claims that their interactions with JM were consensual and ended prior to their deaths/disappearance. That makes it harder for the C.A. to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that JM is the one who did it. (Dead men tell no tales.)