JLM: Morgan Harrington/Fairfax Rape Victim - *Forensic Link* to MH #3

[Evie Ivy Over]

And you have every right to do so, but with all due respect I thought I would show you this as it does state VA state police...

The thing that bothers me about these MSM reports is that they don't always report with total accuracy. The article says VA State Police determined the DNA came from MH's body, but were there any statements from the police? It seems a lot of these "facts" that are being questioned have come from Gil Harrington, yet she recently made a statement that she doesn't know any more than the public knows. Time passes and reporting seems to take on a life of it's own...without much need to question it until such time as we're witnessing now...another suspect's fate depends on the accuracy and roots of those statements.

 

[Heroine]

The thing that bothers me about these MSM reports is that they don't always report with total accuracy. The article says VA State Police determined the DNA came from MH's body, but were there any statements from the police? It seems a lot of these "facts" that are being questioned have come from Gil Harrington, yet she recently made a statement that she doesn't know any more than the public knows. Time passes and reporting seems to take on a life of it's own...without much need to question it until such time as we're witnessing now...another suspect's fate depends on the accuracy and roots of those statements.

Gill Harrington is not LE I'm sure she doesn't think like they do. She does know more but she is not at liberty to discuss these things any longer. You have to think like a parent. Back then she wanted this info out there to seek justice for her child. However, I don't feel there is a lot to know, JM is linked to MH no matter how he is linked, he is linked. LE has said this. And it seems like no matter what you post proven fact or not, it will be questioned.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I read a book about Columbine, and it talked about how Cassie Bernall's parents wrote a book about how Eric and Dylan asked their daughter if she believed in God, and shot her when she said yes. But witnesses in the library said another girl was asked the question instead (and survived) and the audio tape of the shooting confirms this. I believe the Bernalls were initially told the story was true, but even after the truth came out, they still do lots of public speaking regarding the "She said yes" story. This might seem completely OT but it is not.

 

[Conductor71]

Just to confirm for everyone. Morgan Harrington was identified through dental records, not DNA analysis, at the time her remains were discovered in January 2010.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/27/virginia.harrington.remains/

Dental records are used when DNA identification is not possible due to condition of remains.

Three Ways to Identify a Body When DNA is not an option.

Maybe DNA of the Fairfax perp was extracted from her teeth? Wonder where " on Morgan" that perp's DNA was sampled? We know some came from her shirt, and a metal bracelet was found "on Morgan's body". No DNA was directly extracted from her remains.

 

[littlemaybaby]

Just to confirm for everyone. Morgan Harrington was identified through dental records, not DNA analysis, at the time her remains were discovered in January 2010.

http://www.con.com/2010/CRIME/01/27/virginia.harrington.remains/

Dental records are used when DNA identification is not possible due to condition of remains.

Three Ways to Identify a Body When DNA is not an option.

Maybe DNA of the Fairfax perp was extracted from her teeth? Wonder where " on Morgan" that perp's DNA was sampled? We know some came from her shirt, and a metal bracelet was found "on Morgan's body". No DNA was directly extracted from her remains.

Just to confirm for everyone, I think you meant CNN.com.

And that article does not say DNA was not an option for Morgan. It says that dental records were used to ID her and an autopsy had yet to be performed.

Dental records can be used when DNA is not an option - true. They can also be used as a way of identifying quickly when DNA analysis can take longer. Using dental records does not necessarily mean they never found DNA upon further inspection of her remains.

So, can you please source your statement "No DNA was directly extracted from her remains?" Or is that just your opinion?

Edit: Source for the fact that dental records are still used even when DNA could also be used: http://www.pennsylvaniamissing.com/homepage/forensicinformation.html

 

[wall0214]

I think the discussion about the DNA is more of an issue of semantics than anything - there has been no report that I could find that specifically says that DNA evidence was found directly on the bones/flesh of Morgan's remains - the wording is that DNA evidence was found "on" Morgan - therefore, the DNA technically could have been found on her jewelry, the clothes that were found with her remains, etc. That doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but we don't know if she was - maybe Gil Harrington was making an assumption - but again, I've not seen where she or Dan have come out and said that the police have evidence that Morgan was raped before she was murdered. Is it likely? I'd say very, but we don't know for certain.

The idea that Gil and Dan are in the medical field and therefore have the expertise to analyze the evidence and make definitive statements about what happened to Morgan doesn't sit well with me simply because their daughter was murdered and the emotion that surrounds that one fact will typically trump any degree of logical intelligence. They may be prone to say things out of hurt, anger, frustration, desperation, etc. that they might not otherwise say if this "victim" was not their own daughter.

Regardless, the cops have DNA evidence in Morgan's case and the Fairfax case. Jesse Matthew has been definitively linked to two cases - why he's not been linked to Fairfax (publicly by the police) yet is beyond me. Do I think it's because the cops have the wrong guy and Matthew just has the sheer luck of bad coincidence? No. Bottom line, I think the cops have the right guy and I pray for the victims and their families that the police are able to build a rock solid case against JM so that he never again sees the light of day. It will be interesting to see what evidence is presented at the trials....

 

[littlemaybaby]

I think the discussion about the DNA is more of an issue of semantics than anything - there has been no report that I could find that specifically says that DNA evidence was found directly on the bones/flesh of Morgan's remains - the wording is that DNA evidence was found "on" Morgan - therefore, the DNA technically could have been found on her jewelry, the clothes that were found with her remains, etc. That doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but we don't know if she was - maybe Gil Harrington was making an assumption - but again, I've not seen where she or Dan have come out and said that the police have evidence that Morgan was raped before she was murdered. Is it likely? I'd say very, but we don't know for certain.

The idea that Gil and Dan are in the medical field and therefore have the expertise to analyze the evidence and make definitive statements about what happened to Morgan doesn't sit well with me simply because their daughter was murdered and the emotion that surrounds that one fact will typically trump any degree of logical intelligence. They may be prone to say things out of hurt, anger, frustration, desperation, etc. that they might not otherwise say if this "victim" was not their own daughter.

Regardless, the cops have DNA evidence in Morgan's case and the Fairfax case. Jesse Matthew has been definitively linked to two cases - why he's not been linked to Fairfax (publicly by the police) yet is beyond me. Do I think it's because the cops have the wrong guy and Matthew just has the sheer luck of bad coincidence? No. Bottom line, I think the cops have the right guy and I pray for the victims and their families that the police are able to build a rock solid case against JM so that he never again sees the light of day. It will be interesting to see what evidence is presented at the trials....

THANK YOU! I am one of the crazy people who am waiting to hear forensic facts directly from LE/prosecution at trial. I think the circumstantial evidence is piling up and points to probable guilt but that isn't the standard to convict him and is JMO. But the bickering back and forth about "facts" that really aren't known to the public is going nowhere.

 

[Foxfire]

Just to confirm for everyone.

Morgan Harrington was identified through dental records, not DNA analysis, at the time her remains were discovered in January 2010.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/27/virginia.harrington.remains/

Dental records are used when DNA identification is not possible due to condition of remains.

Three Ways to Identify a Body When DNA is not an option.

Maybe DNA of the Fairfax perp was extracted from her teeth? Wonder where " on Morgan" that perp's DNA was sampled? We know some came from her shirt, and a metal bracelet was found "on Morgan's body". No DNA was directly extracted from her remains.

<BBM for Focus>

When intact and records are available, the identification of an unknown victim utilizing Dental Records can be accomplished quickly; in hours, as opposed to DNA identification which can take weeks or in some cases months, depending on the condition of the remains, etc. This was the case in the recent discovery 09/2014 by ginseng hunters of the partial remains and skull of Holly Bobo(TN-abducted 04/13/2011).



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/09/us-usa-crime-tennessee-idUSKBN0H428F20140909
Sep 9, 2014 - (Reuters) - The partial remains of missing Tennessee student Holly Bobo, ... the remains were identified as Bobo's through dental records.
______________________________

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/skeletal-remains.html

Skeletal remains are all that is left of a corpse after nature has taken its course and has disposed of skin, tissue, and any other organ that may cover the skeletal frame.

Discovering Skeletal Remains
For the most part skeletal remains are found long after a victim has died and this may be because the body has been disposed of in order to cover up the perpetration of a crime. In this way it is usually murder that is the crime and the body has been hidden to disguise the fact that a murder has been committed - intentionally or otherwise.
Skeletal remains are normally found buried in shallow graves; again the modus operandi of a killer who has not intended to murder their victim and has decided on a whim to dispose of the body. These shallow graves are usually to be found in out of the way places such as marshland, forests, wooded areas or any other area where the volume of human traffic passing through it is small.
<sniped - read more>

 

[Conductor71]

Just to confirm for everyone, I think you meant CNN.com.

Yes, not sure what happened, but it is now correct.

Just
And that article does not say DNA was not an option for Morgan. It says that dental records were used to ID her and an autopsy had yet to be performed.

It is impossible to extract nuclear DNA from skeletal remains. MH was found in such condition.

Just
So, can you please source your statement "No DNA was directly extracted from her remains?" Or is that just your opinion?

It is not necessary. Refer to any basic forensic evidence source. It is factual.

Please source where you have determined that MH's remains were in a sufficient state to extract a complete nuclear DNA sample. Also, you would need to provide one that states the same for the Fairfax perp.

<mod snip>

 

[littlemaybaby]

Yes, not sure what happened, but it is now correct.


It is impossible to extract nuclear DNA from skeletal remains. MH was found in such condition.



It is not necessary. Refer to any basic forensic evidence source. It is factual.

Please source where you have determined that MH's remains were in a sufficient state to extract a complete nuclear DNA sample. Also, you would need to provide one that states the same for the Fairfax perp.

It looks like no all you have is a semantic argument.

I don't make a habit of sourcing things that aren't my opinion and that I never said. I NEVER said they did get DNA from her. NEVER. I don't know what they were able to get from her or not and I am waiting to see what evidence actually gets presented. But both sides here are saying things as if they are fact and we just don't know that they are. You don't know that they didn't anymore than other people here know that they did. You say it's unlikely given her condition, other people say it's possible some was still available and intact under fingernails. I don't know - because I haven't seen the evidence. That's all.

The fact that they used dental records to ID her certainly isn't proof that there was no DNA.

Edit - I think you are reading my debate of your "facts" as if I think she was loaded with DNA and you are full of bologna. It's not like that at all. I think your scenario is a possibility - but we don't know it to be fact.

 

[Conductor71]

I think the discussion about the DNA is more of an issue of semantics than anything - there has been no report that I could find that specifically says that DNA evidence was found directly on the bones/flesh of Morgan's remains - the wording is that DNA evidence was found "on" Morgan - therefore, the DNA technically could have been found on her jewelry, the clothes that were found with her remains, etc. That doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but we don't know if she was - maybe Gil Harrington was making an assumption - but again, I've not seen where she or Dan have come out and said that the police have evidence that Morgan was raped before she was murdered. Is it likely? I'd say very, but we don't know for certain.

The idea that Gil and Dan are in the medical field and therefore have the expertise to analyze the evidence and make definitive statements about what happened to Morgan doesn't sit well with me simply because their daughter was murdered and the emotion that surrounds that one fact will typically trump any degree of logical intelligence. They may be prone to say things out of hurt, anger, frustration, desperation, etc. that they might not otherwise say if this "victim" was not their own daughter.

Good points. I have brought those up. For some reason that is not being explicitly shared some members persist with this semantic argument. Forensic link can anything; DNA is but one of those findings. Point is LE will not reveal anything that might compromise case, so we have to wait to see how it unfolds.

 

[wall0214]

Not to "stir the pot," but there was more to Morgan's remains than just bones:
http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/d...a-c6cf-553f-bb2b-89086c41cd67.html?TNNoMobile
"Experts have enough tissue from Morgan D. Harrington to conduct several tests, though those tests could take many months, the parents of the slain college student said Thursday.
They made the statement after coming to Charlottesville to speak with police about the search for their daughter&#8217;s killer, addressing a small gathering of media on the bridge where their daughter was last reported alive.
According to the parents, officials are performing toxicology and DNA tests.
&#8220;You have to reconstitute them to then do your chemical assays on,&#8221; Gil Harrington, Morgan&#8217;s mother, said."

 

[otto]

Yes, not sure what happened, but it is now correct.


It is impossible to extract nuclear DNA from skeletal remains. MH was found in such condition.



It is not necessary. Refer to any basic forensic evidence source. It is factual.

Please source where you have determined that MH's remains were in a sufficient state to extract a complete nuclear DNA sample. Also, you would need to provide one that states the same for the Fairfax perp.

It looks like no all you have is a semantic argument.

I think it is necessary to provide quotes and links when making statements of fact. Morgan was identified through dental records prior to an autopsy. That means that an awful lot of information was yet to be learned after her remains were identified. It cannot be stated that after she was identified through dental records, nothing new could be learned from her body. We know that isn't true.

 

[wall0214]

I think it is necessary to provide quotes and links when making statements of fact. Morgan was identified through dental records prior to an autopsy. That means that an awful lot of information was yet to be learned after her remains were identified. It cannot be stated that after she was identified through dental records, nothing new could be learned from her body. We know that isn't true.

I think some people believe that because it's been reported in the press, it's "fact." If anything, throughout the cases of Morgan, Hannah and Alexis Murphy, I've found that the press can be insanely unreliable. If we're talking about evidence, unless the info came directly from LE and can be attributed to a specific person (not "a source close to the investigation"), I don't consider it a fact.

 

[newredtabby]

I think some people believe that because it's been reported in the press, it's "fact." If anything, throughout the cases of Morgan, Hannah and Alexis Murphy, I've found that the press can be insanely unreliable. If we're talking about evidence, unless the info came directly from LE and can be attributed to a specific person (not "a source close to the investigation"), I don't consider it a fact.

Except, we can't even consider info from LE as fact since they routinely lie to the public if it helps their investigation. Remember JLM was most certainly just a reflection for a while? Remember the balloon boy case! An entire LE press conference was setup with lies about the investigation to fool the family into thinking they were being believed by LE. LE lies with the best of them if it suits them.

 

[Heroine]

Except, we can't even consider info from LE as fact since they routinely lie to the public if it helps their investigation. Remember JLM was most certainly just a reflection for a while? Remember the balloon boy case! An entire LE press conference was setup with lies about the investigation to fool the family into thinking they were being believed by LE. LE lies with the best of them if it suits them.

I agree and that's why I said I would believe MH parents over LE anyday! And not only that, info they wanted public in one case, may not be wanted to be leaked in another case with the same suspect as I have witnessed with this case. Sometimes you just can't take back what's already been stated as fact. JMO

 

[Emaa]

It is impossible to extract nuclear DNA from skeletal remains.

Really now?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284181/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22183740

 

[otto]

I think some people believe that because it's been reported in the press, it's "fact." If anything, throughout the cases of Morgan, Hannah and Alexis Murphy, I've found that the press can be insanely unreliable. If we're talking about evidence, unless the info came directly from LE and can be attributed to a specific person (not "a source close to the investigation"), I don't consider it a fact.

I've followed enough cases to know that when there's a desire to portray an arrested person as a victim, there's usually a theory that information from media, and/or police, is completely unreliable. There's usually a theory about conspiracy, and if all else fails, the prosecutor is occasionally personally attacked. Some cases get really interesting, where people with no credentials in science attempt to analyse and discredit DNA results.

What I know is that there is a lot more information about a criminal act prior to an arrest than after an arrest. Prior to the connection between Jesse and Morgan, Morgan's parents and police released relevant information they had in order to elicit information from the public with the hope of making an arrest. Now that an arrest has been made, the information that was released shortly after the murder and the discovery of the remains does not become untrue. It is still true, but the difference today is that it is not being repeated. That is, four years ago, it was a well known fact that DNA found on Morgan's body was connected to the 2005 rape. Today, to protect the integrity of the case, it is not going to be repeated. Today, it seems that many want to question the truth of four year old statement. Those are still true today. The big difference is that now we know who is most likely responsible for Morgan's murder, and we know that the Harrington's were correct when they stated that Morgan was not his first victim, and that she would not be his last victim. Jesse got sloppy this time and connected the dots for us ... dots that were unconnected for more than a decade.

 

[Heroine]

I think the discussion about the DNA is more of an issue of semantics than anything - there has been no report that I could find that specifically says that DNA evidence was found directly on the bones/flesh of Morgan's remains - the wording is that DNA evidence was found "on" Morgan - therefore, the DNA technically could have been found on her jewelry, the clothes that were found with her remains, etc. That doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but we don't know if she was - maybe Gil Harrington was making an assumption - but again, I've not seen where she or Dan have come out and said that the police have evidence that Morgan was raped before she was murdered. Is it likely? I'd say very, but we don't know for certain.

The idea that Gil and Dan are in the medical field and therefore have the expertise to analyze the evidence and make definitive statements about what happened to Morgan doesn't sit well with me simply because their daughter was murdered and the emotion that surrounds that one fact will typically trump any degree of logical intelligence. They may be prone to say things out of hurt, anger, frustration, desperation, etc. that they might not otherwise say if this "victim" was not their own daughter.

Regardless, the cops have DNA evidence in Morgan's case and the Fairfax case. Jesse Matthew has been definitively linked to two cases - why he's not been linked to Fairfax (publicly by the police) yet is beyond me. Do I think it's because the cops have the wrong guy and Matthew just has the sheer luck of bad coincidence? No. Bottom line, I think the cops have the right guy and I pray for the victims and their families that the police are able to build a rock solid case against JM so that he never again sees the light of day. It will be interesting to see what evidence is presented at the trials....

I don't feel the Harringtons made any assumptions about how their daughter died. WOULD YOU? I know I wouldn't. I would know and they would tell me what happened to my daughter, plain and simple. They can't withhold something like that from her parents. If a medical examiner or LE determined she was indeed raped they would tell the Harrington's. I believe MH's parents moreso than I do LE. JMO but be logical. That is their child, that is not something that you as a parent would make assumptions about! They have stated that she was raped and murdered. When she was raped I don't think that matters much at this point. I mean do you really think JM just went out looking for dead bodies to rape?
Edited to add that I am sorry if I come off rude, it's just that I have 2 daughters and I can't imagine what it would be like for people to think I made something as sick as that up.

 

[Ixchel13]

<modsnip>




Where did I say the DNA only came from the shirt? I get that <modsnip>



I am not sure what you mean. <modsnip> Forensics is a tool, a flawed one. It has been under scrutiny for at least a decade for lacking in scientific rigor. DNA profiling is yet one tool in an arsenal that can strengthen a case; yet it is just one contextual thing, and its strength or weakness in a case depends on other evidence. That was my over all point, <modsnip>

Last I checked, CODIS is a database that collects genetic data for comparison and matching of chromosomal loci. It is a matching tool; it is not an infallible, omniscient forensic god. <modsnip> Maybe you do have some expertise on just how CODIS works and its statistical reliability. How searches can yield a wide range of results with verification of race being but one partial result. Since you are <modsnip> knowledgeable, please explain just how CODIS works, and all the kinds of data it yields. Also what exactly does a match include about a person?




Really? Read on...

BBM Did I say that any and all DNA found only on that shirt was entered into CODIS? Genetic or DNA sampling must be taken from several places from evidence including both human tissue and things like clothing; then narrowed down to identify pertinent samples. So you are saying that only DNA taken from evidence at the crime scene is the only credible source? In addition to genetic interference from the shirt's locale outdoors, it likely had many traces from Morgan's friends or anyone else she had contact with prior to her disappearance. Genetic sampling is a process of exclusion and refinement. As for that shirt left in public, how could I be so dense...?

In April, five months after its discovery, police announced that forensic evidence revealed that the Pantera t-shirt...did, in fact, belong to Morgan. That forensic evidence, says Barfield, was most likely DNA&#8211;- and, he says, a likely source for the match with the Fairfax case since extracting an assailant's DNA evidence from Morgan's decomposed remains, which were exposed to the elements for three months, would have been very difficult. (Like farm owner Bass, the UVA student who discovered the t-shirt had not yet been shown the composite sketch when a reporter showed it to him.)

note: Barfield is a forensic expert and retired, local LEO who offers genetic profiling services.





Sigh. Again, yes actually it can. I am not saying it provided only a partial match on race. Records can simply be used to establish more certainty of race. I said that it could have been used to verify race at minimum. We are not privy to what it established. <modsnip>

BBM "most likely" guy doesn't know shinola about this specific case,IMO