JLM: When will charges come in the HG and MH cases?

[Conductor71]

One reason to keep a wooden cigar tip would be for smoking "a Blunt" , a large Marijuana cigarette (cigar) rolled in a tobacco leaf. The tip makes it easier to smoke as it burns down toward the end. Blunts are generally shared between two (or more) people , otherwise the weed is going up in smoke while you are coughing your fool head off between tokes.

But ... they are not expensive ,or hard to find, ....I think it would be a very frugal person that would save one in his wallet.
JM does not strike me as that type of person .. He seemed to be very generous when buying drinks for several people that night , and women could always count on him for a free cab ride !

No, I still think this particular tip has some significance.

Just My Opinion ~ Everybody Knows That~

I started to post about "blunts" but did not want to incriminate myself....

I recall that my dad smoked cigarillos (a smallish, slim cigar) AKA Swisher Sweets when he was trying to give up cigarettes. This is pretty common because they are long lasting and taste pretty mild. They are also fairly costly if used as a cigarette substitute. My dad had a rather disgusting habit of saving partially smoked cigarillos. He is an engineer so a different pay bracket than JM, but he saved the cigar when his smoking was interrupted. Not his wallet mind you but even odder places.

BTW, the wooden tips on these are meant to be disposable, and I don't see why one would go through the trouble of transferring a tip to top off a blunt, but who knows? It is a good possibility.

 

[Conductor71]

I haven't kept up with the discussion ... was there new information that the shirt that belonged to Morgan can be connected to Jesse Matthew?

Yes, the DNA was on the shirt that was "on" her body. The DNA was not taken directly from MH's remains.

There is a search warrant leak too!

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/s...cle_d53c0d4c-744e-11e4-b224-dfcb696b84ff.html

 

[Conductor71]

So the first paragraph detailed how they came up with the forensic match between MH and Fairfax. Then they go on to tell how they matched JM to MH's shirt:


“A DNA profile was developed from the ‘wooden tip from a cigar butt’ and could not be eliminated as a contributor to the sampling from the majority of the interior of the black t-shirt,” the search warrant continued."


It's confusing to me that the fingernail scraping even needs to be included in the MH investigation--if they have the profile from the shirt, and they have JM's buccal swab, what's the need to bring the Fairfax DNA analysis into the picture? Does that mean they can't independently match his DNA to the shirt? And how does JM's DNA get on the inside of the shirt? Did the stain settle there over the month or so before the shirt was found? Very interesting, and perplexing...maybe if we knew everything, it wouldn't be?

Wow! Thanks, I missed that second part on the interior of the shirt.

I thought it was interesting to read J. Camblo's reaction:

Matthew’s lawyer in the Graham case, Jim Camblos, said he was aware that Harrington’s shirt had been the link between her and Matthew but he did not know what kind of DNA had been recovered.

My head is about to split... does he mean Mitochondrial DNA? Just how many "kinds" are there?

 

[Conductor71]

Well, that might make for interesting discussion. Let's first remember the DNA came from difuse "stains" from inside the shirt. I'm thinking those stains were probably produced by blood or semen and the DNA has already been identified as belonging to JLM. Are you suggesting JLM's DNA might have been contained in the blood or semen of another person? How would such a scenario come to be?

Recall that it was witnessed that MH hurt her chin that night; it was noticeable to the point where she was offered assitance. It is thought that she fell and injured herself in the arena. A witness saw her in the bathroom tending to it.

Her blood could have easily been on the shirt.

 

[4 Free Speech]

Urine doesn't contain DNA, except in the rare instance that the urine contains epitheal cells. Here are the main sources for DNA:

http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html

Thanks Ilokal! I had to define "epithelial cells".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epithelium#Simple_epithelium

Urine itself does not contain DNA, but it may contain epithelial cells, which do contain DNA. Most healthy individuals, however, do not excrete epithelial cells in their urine.

Epithelial Cells
Normally in men and women, a few epithelial cells from the bladder (transitional epithelial cells) or from the external urethra (squamous epithelial cells) can be found in the urine sediment. Cells from the kidney (kidney cells) are less common. In urinary tract conditions such as infections, inflammation, and malignancies, more epithelial cells are present. Determining the kinds of cells present helps the health care provider pinpoint where the condition is located. For example, a bladder infection may result in large numbers of transitional epithelial cells in urine sediment. Epithelial cells are usually reported as "few," "moderate," or "many" present per low power field (LPF).

Maybe JLM had an STD or something?

This is not my area of expertise, but I have read that many serial rapist's and violent crime predators urinate on their victims after they are done.

 

[ILOKAL]

Recall that it was witnessed that MH hurt her chin that night; it was noticeable to the point where she was offered assitance. It is thought that she fell and injured herself in the arena. A witness saw her in the bathroom tending to it.

Her blood could have easily been on the shirt.

Conductor71, MH's DNA is expected to be on the shirt and even if the stains from the inside of her shirt ARE her blood that wouldn't change anything because yes, HER DNA would of course be in those stains but what is JLM's DNA doing mixed with MH's own blood stains (as in your scenario) on her shirt?

 

[Film_At11]

Honestly, I think the verbiage in the article is a little confusing, but we have no choice but to take it at face value. I wanted to dissect these two paragraphs to try to make more sense of a couple of these points:

“There was a large diffuse of stain on the shirt,” the search warrant indicated."

(This means--from a link posted earlier--a weak DNA sample.)

Step 1: “A DNA mixture profile was developed on the shirt"

Step 2: ...and searched against the Virginia DNA Data Bank. Search results indicated that...

(Description of the Fairfax sample in the Data Bank "the contributor of a foreign DNA profile, indicative of a male contributor, which was developed from a fingernail scraping of a female victim who was sexually assaulted by a male subject in a 2005 City of Fairfax, Virginia case

(They seem to go out of their way to desribe the DNA as from a male individual.)

Result: "...could not be eliminated as a contributor to the mixture profile taken from Harrington’s shirt.”


So the first paragraph detailed how they came up with the forensic match between MH and Fairfax. Then they go on to tell how they matched JM to MH's shirt:


“A DNA profile was developed from the ‘wooden tip from a cigar butt’ and could not be eliminated as a contributor to the sampling from the majority of the interior of the black t-shirt,” the search warrant continued."


It's confusing to me that the fingernail scraping even needs to be included in the MH investigation--if they have the profile from the shirt, and they have JM's buccal swab, what's the need to bring the Fairfax DNA analysis into the picture? Does that mean they can't independently match his DNA to the shirt? And how does JM's DNA get on the inside of the shirt? Did the stain settle there over the month or so before the shirt was found? Very interesting, and perplexing...maybe if we knew everything, it wouldn't be?

Your question "How does JM's DNA get on the inside of the shirt?"
I think the shirt gets turned inside out when JM pulls it off of her probably drugged body. ( *note*, I have never tried to pull a womans shirt off against her will , but I am quite sure that it would become inside out)
He then rapes her , and afterwards grabs the shirt to wipe himself and any incriminating evidence he sees. He plans to ditch the shirt somewhere , but forgets and maybe even washes it , leaving a very degraded (Diffuse,but still there) "Mixed DNA" sample. He may have purposely left it in a conspicuous location to taunt police , or maybe in hopes that someone would find and wear the shirt, thus taking the heat off him. The DNA may have been further degraded by the elements, causing LE to use a "Major portion of the inside of the shirt for testing". This may have only gotten a weak result , which was sorted out when they had a "known" sample to compare.
I don't know much about DNA (but I probably will by the time this case is over) , but I think the reference to "Foreign Dna means not MH's. Not that there is a possible additional donor.

JMO ~Everybody Knows That~

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

Your question "How does JM's DNA get on the inside of the shirt?"
I think the shirt gets turned inside out when JM pulls it off of her probably drugged body. ( *note*, I have never tried to pull a womans shirt off against her will , but I am quite sure that it would become inside out)
He then rapes her , and afterwards grabs the shirt to wipe himself and any incriminating evidence he sees. He plans to ditch the shirt somewhere , but forgets and maybe even washes it , leaving a very degraded (Diffuse,but still there) "Mixed DNA" sample. He may have purposely left it in a conspicuous location to taunt police , or maybe in hopes that someone would find and wear the shirt, thus taking the heat off him. The DNA may have been further degraded by the elements, causing LE to use a "Major portion of the inside of the shirt for testing". This may have only gotten a weak result , which was sorted out when they had a "known" sample to compare.
I don't know much about DNA (but I probably will by the time this case is over) , but I think the reference to "Foreign Dna means not MH's. Not that there is a possible additional donor.

JMO ~Everybody Knows That~

Yep, you're right...the shirt probably would have been turned inside out when it was taken off...(duh!!)

What I'm wondering is whether someone else put the shirt on display...someone who wanted to get rid of it, although I can't think of a reason for choosing that particular location, other than to throw LE off the trail of the person they got it from? The emotional pleas from Joe Radar seemed to be directed at someone in particular and insinuated that a person close to the perpetrator knew details about the crime and who did it--I got the impression that there was additional DNA on the shirt that he assumed came from a friend/relative who may have placed the shirt on the bushes. He was asking them to come forward. Maybe there was also foreign female DNA on the shirt.

 

[4 Free Speech]

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP/WJLA) - A search warrant says DNA on a shirt and a cigar butt linked the suspect in a University of Virginia student's disappearance to the death of another young woman five years ago.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/1...on-case-dna-link-to-jesse-matthew-109322.html

Matthew pleads not guilty in Fairfax sex assault case
Matthew linked to earlier assault via DNA from victim's fingernail

Morgan Harrington, Jesse Matthew and Hannah Graham. (WJLA/AP photos)

Two Charlottesville TV stations obtained a search warrant in the Morgan Harrington murder investigation as a result of what authorities called a clerical error. ****

The Virginia Tech student disappeared in October 2009 after leaving a Metallica concert at U.Va. Her remains were found three months later.
The search warrant says DNA was found on Harrington's shirt and a cigar butt taken from Jesse Matthew Jr.'s wallet after he was arrested in the disappearance of U.Va. student Hannah Graham. Graham's remains were found last month.
Matthew is charged with abduction with intent to defile in the Graham case. He has not been charged in the Harrington case.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP/WJLA) - A search warrant says DNA on a shirt and a cigar butt linked the suspect in a University of Virginia student's disappearance to the death of another young woman five years ago.

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/1...on-case-dna-link-to-jesse-matthew-109322.html

Matthew pleads not guilty in Fairfax sex assault case
Matthew linked to earlier assault via DNA from victim's fingernail

Morgan Harrington, Jesse Matthew and Hannah Graham. (WJLA/AP photos)

Two Charlottesville TV stations obtained a search warrant in the Morgan Harrington murder investigation as a result of what authorities called a clerical error. ****

The Virginia Tech student disappeared in October 2009 after leaving a Metallica concert at U.Va. Her remains were found three months later.
The search warrant says DNA was found on Harrington's shirt and a cigar butt taken from Jesse Matthew Jr.'s wallet after he was arrested in the disappearance of U.Va. student Hannah Graham. Graham's remains were found last month.
Matthew is charged with abduction with intent to defile in the Graham case. He has not been charged in the Harrington case.

Ummmm...why would they use the cigar butt and not the buccal swab??? Could it be that the buccal swab was as a result of arrest in the HG case and couldn't be used for the MH investigation?

 

[ILOKAL]

Ummmm...why would they use the cigar butt and not the buccal swab??? Could it be that the buccal swab was as a result of arrest in the HG case and couldn't be used for the MH investigation?

I was thinking the cigar butt was found in his wallet after his arrest in Texas and immediately tested for DNA. The buccal swab wasn't taken until he returned to Virginia.

 

[jbowman55]

Here's a little more from your link, which seems to explain that the cigar tip was not part of the leaked warrant:

"While we previously knew investigators had evidence that linked Matthew, who is also the suspect in the abduction of 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham, to Harrington, the search warrant revelation is the first specific confirmation of that evidence.

“There was a large diffuse of stain on the shirt,” the search warrant indicated. “A DNA mixture profile was developed….on the shirt and searched against the Virginia DNA Data Bank. Search results indicated that the contributor of a foreign DNA profile, indicative of a male contributor, which was developed from a fingernail scraping of a female victim who was sexually assaulted by a male subject in a 2005 City of Fairfax, Virginia case, could not be eliminated as a contributor to the mixture profile taken from Harrington’s shirt.”

Matthew has recently been charged in connection to the 2005 sexual assault case.

Charlottesville Police then submitted a “wooden tip from a cigar butt” that Matthew had his wallet to the state crime lab.

“A DNA profile was developed from the ‘wooden tip from a cigar butt’ and could not be eliminated as a contributor to the sampling from the majority of the interior of the black t-shirt,” the search warrant continued. “The probability of randomly selecting an unrelated individual who would be included as a contributor to the DNA mixture profile is greater than one in 7.2 billion, which is approximately the world population.”

The search warrant indicated police are working with Ntelos to confirm Matthew had a working mobile phone in the Charlottesville-area the night Harrington disappeared.

Please, y'all, can we look at this again? Can you all bear with me for a minute while I beat this up a bit? I feel that it is important to keep these two statements about DNA separate, and not assume that both are talking about JM.

The article does not say that the stain was on the inside of the shirt. It specifically says that the DNA from the stain was a match to the DNA that was taken from underneath the fingernail of the Fairfax victim from 2005. It doesn't say whether the stain was on the inside or the outside of the shirt. It also says that the DNA from the stain matched DNA that was indicative of a male contributor. And it says that the use of the term "foreign DNA profile" applies to the Fairfax victim, as in, the DNA found on the Fairfax victim was foreign to HER, which would have been the reason that LE would have known that that "foreign" DNA represented the DNA of her attacker.

Then, in a separate statement, it says that DNA from the cigar butt tip was a match to a DNA sample from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt." It does not say that this DNA was male. It does not say that this DNA from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt" matches the DNA from Fairfax. It does not even say that this DNA was "foreign" to the DNA that would have been expected to be found on the black t-shirt. It only says that the DNA from the inside of the shirt matches the DNA from the cigar butt tip. Important: It does not say that the DNA from the cigar butt tip belongs to JM.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I imagining things? Please read those two paragraphs separately from each other, carefully, and then tell me what you see.

If I am totally off base here, I will hush, if someone can just point out to me where I've misinterpreted.

 

[ILOKAL]

Please, y'all, can we look at this again? Can you all bear with me for a minute while I beat this up a bit? I feel that it is important to keep these two statements about DNA separate, and not assume that both are talking about JM.

The article does not say that the stain was on the inside of the shirt. It specifically says that the DNA from the stain was a match to the DNA that was taken from underneath the fingernail of the Fairfax victim from 2005. It doesn't say whether the stain was on the inside or the outside of the shirt. It also says that the DNA from the stain matched DNA that was indicative of a male contributor. And it says that the use of the term "foreign DNA profile" applies to the Fairfax victim, as in, the DNA found on the Fairfax victim was foreign to HER, which would have been the reason that LE would have known that that "foreign" DNA represented the DNA of her attacker.

Then, in a separate statement, it says that DNA from the cigar butt tip was a match to a DNA sample from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt." It does not say that this DNA was male. It does not say that this DNA from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt" matches the DNA from Fairfax. It does not even say that this DNA was "foreign" to the DNA that would have been expected to be found on the black t-shirt. It only says that the DNA from the inside of the shirt matches the DNA from the cigar butt tip. Important: It does not say that the DNA from the cigar butt tip belongs to JM.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I imagining things? Please read those two paragraphs separately from each other, carefully, and then tell me what you see.

If I am totally off base here, I will hush, if someone can just point out to me where I've misinterpreted.

Re-read the last sentence of the second paragraph. The contributor of the profile mixture taken from the inside of the Pantera shirt matches (1 in 7.2 billion) the (sole) DNA found on the wooden cigar tip.

Now that same profile taken from the shirt (the stain coming from the 'inside' of the shirt is defined in the second paragraph) matches the "foreign" DNA found in a fingernail scraping taken from the 2005 Fairfax victim.

That's the way I read it. IMO

 

[Conductor71]

You know, I've been thinking about that cigar tip, and thought something was up with that, too...but now, I think this choice of DNA source material was selected because other things available prior to the arrest were items that may have belonged to someone else (i.e., he shared an apartment)--I don't think they had access to a whole lot that they could readily identify as belonging exclusively to JM.

I think that too it had to be something that yielded a single source DNA sample. However, in order for LE to surreptitiously collect DNA it has to be considered "abandoned". Can it be argued that if JM kept something in his wallet that it was "not abandoned"? Did he go through the trouble of trying to hide his DNA somehow? There is something amiss to this cigar tip in the wallet story.

I thought I read that two samples of DNA were needed. An official buccal reference source and then a source that is more evidence based. Like on MH's shirt. Cannot find my reference source though.

Or maybe I am wrong in thinking this cigar tip sample was taken on the sly? Still, they had some sort of sample to run in the DNA Databank? They had a forensic link to MH by September 30 and the buccal sample was not analyzed until October 24!

 

[ILOKAL]

I think that too it had to be something that yielded a single source DNA sample. However, in order for LE to surreptitiously collect DNA it has to be considered "abandoned". Can it be argued that if JM kept something in his wallet that it was "not abandoned"? Did he go through the trouble of trying to hide his DNA somehow? There is something amiss to this cigar tip in the wallet story.

I thought I read that two samples of DNA were needed. An official buccal reference source and then a source that is more evidence based. Like on MH's shirt. Cannot find my reference source though.

Or maybe I am wrong in thinking this cigar tip sample was taken on the sly? Still, they had some sort of sample to run in the DNA Databank? They had a forensic link to MH by September 30 and the buccal sample was not analyzed until October 24!

If I'm thinking through this correctly (I certainly may not be), if the wooden cigar tip that was found in JLM's wallet was confiscated in Texas and sent for analysis, wouldn't that answer all those questions? Then when JLM returned to Virginia the buccal swab was taken and tested.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

I think that too it had to be something that yielded a single source DNA sample. However, in order for LE to surreptitiously collect DNA it has to be considered "abandoned". Can it be argued that if JM kept something in his wallet that it was "not abandoned"? Did he go through the trouble of trying to hide his DNA somehow? There is something amiss to this cigar tip in the wallet story.

I thought I read that two samples of DNA were needed. An official buccal reference source and then a source that is more evidence based. Like on MH's shirt. Cannot find my reference source though.

Or maybe I am wrong in thinking this cigar tip sample was taken on the sly? Still, they had some sort of sample to run in the DNA Databank? They had a forensic link to MH by September 30 and the buccal sample was not analyzed until October 24!

Here's something regarding the two samples you remembered reading about:

"Before a DNA test can be performed, a control sample should be obtained from the victim, suspect, and any other persons whose DNA may be found on the item of evidence.

A control sample can be in the form of whole blood, a buccal swab, or any other known exemplar from the person in question. The easiest type of DNA control sample to obtain is a buccal swab. A buccal swab involves swabbing the inside of a person's cheek with an approved type of swab, for about 30 seconds, to secure the buccal cells that are found on the inside of the cheek. If done properly, a full DNA profile can be obtained from this swab."

DNA @ http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/DNA.html

My interpretation of this is that a control sample is collected and compared against the sample from the evidence.

So, LE had DNA evidence on the shirt to be compared to a control sample. IMO, that cigar butt would in no way be used as a control sample! Especially since they had him under arrest and were going to get the swab. I think jbowman55 is on to something...

 

[ILOKAL]

Here's something regarding the two samples you remembered reading about:

"Before a DNA test can be performed, a control sample should be obtained from the victim, suspect, and any other persons whose DNA may be found on the item of evidence.

A control sample can be in the form of whole blood, a buccal swab, or any other known exemplar from the person in question. The easiest type of DNA control sample to obtain is a buccal swab. A buccal swab involves swabbing the inside of a person's cheek with an approved type of swab, for about 30 seconds, to secure the buccal cells that are found on the inside of the cheek. If done properly, a full DNA profile can be obtained from this swab."

DNA @ http://www.crimescene-forensics.com/DNA.html

My interpretation of this is that a control sample is collected and compared against the sample from the evidence.

So, LE had DNA evidence on the shirt to be compared to a control sample. IMO, that cigar butt would in no way be used as a control sample! Especially since they had him under arrest and were going to get the swab. I think jbowman55 is on to something...

I believe they could use the wooden cigar tip for initial testing (not evidentiary) and then do a follow-up, so to speak, when they get the buccal swab. That's how it would be done with a sample taken from a cigarette butt or straw, as examples, retrieved from a potential suspect.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

Please, y'all, can we look at this again? Can you all bear with me for a minute while I beat this up a bit? I feel that it is important to keep these two statements about DNA separate, and not assume that both are talking about JM.

The article does not say that the stain was on the inside of the shirt. It specifically says that the DNA from the stain was a match to the DNA that was taken from underneath the fingernail of the Fairfax victim from 2005. It doesn't say whether the stain was on the inside or the outside of the shirt. It also says that the DNA from the stain matched DNA that was indicative of a male contributor. And it says that the use of the term "foreign DNA profile" applies to the Fairfax victim, as in, the DNA found on the Fairfax victim was foreign to HER, which would have been the reason that LE would have known that that "foreign" DNA represented the DNA of her attacker.

Then, in a separate statement, it says that DNA from the cigar butt tip was a match to a DNA sample from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt." It does not say that this DNA was male. It does not say that this DNA from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt" matches the DNA from Fairfax. It does not even say that this DNA was "foreign" to the DNA that would have been expected to be found on the black t-shirt. It only says that the DNA from the inside of the shirt matches the DNA from the cigar butt tip. Important: It does not say that the DNA from the cigar butt tip belongs to JM.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I imagining things? Please read those two paragraphs separately from each other, carefully, and then tell me what you see.

If I am totally off base here, I will hush, if someone can just point out to me where I've misinterpreted.

jbowmann55...This is the best explanation yet for questions around that cigar butt. I believe you've laid that out very well, and now that you've proposed this, I honestly can't see it any other way.

 

[Film_At11]

Please, y'all, can we look at this again? Can you all bear with me for a minute while I beat this up a bit? I feel that it is important to keep these two statements about DNA separate, and not assume that both are talking about JM.

The article does not say that the stain was on the inside of the shirt. It specifically says that the DNA from the stain was a match to the DNA that was taken from underneath the fingernail of the Fairfax victim from 2005. It doesn't say whether the stain was on the inside or the outside of the shirt. It also says that the DNA from the stain matched DNA that was indicative of a male contributor. And it says that the use of the term "foreign DNA profile" applies to the Fairfax victim, as in, the DNA found on the Fairfax victim was foreign to HER, which would have been the reason that LE would have known that that "foreign" DNA represented the DNA of her attacker.

Then, in a separate statement, it says that DNA from the cigar butt tip was a match to a DNA sample from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt." It does not say that this DNA was male. It does not say that this DNA from the "majority of the interior of the black t-shirt" matches the DNA from Fairfax. It does not even say that this DNA was "foreign" to the DNA that would have been expected to be found on the black t-shirt. It only says that the DNA from the inside of the shirt matches the DNA from the cigar butt tip. Important: It does not say that the DNA from the cigar butt tip belongs to JM.

Am I the only one who sees this? Am I imagining things? Please read those two paragraphs separately from each other, carefully, and then tell me what you see.

If I am totally off base here, I will hush, if someone can just point out to me where I've misinterpreted.

jbowman55.... I think you have solved this complex algebra riddle ! It explains a lot of the missing parts here.I think it tells us why the cigar tip was saved by JM. It also shows why LE was able to collect it as "Evidence" and not as a DNA sample? LE is not giving us much to work with.
Now I wish I knew what the "Forensic link" means re: HG.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

An old MH case article published the day before her remains were found:

Search for Harrington continues
Three months after disappearance, Virginia State Police report no new information
Jan 25 2010

"...police were able to retrieve Harrington's purse and necklace but have not yet located a red digital camera that they believe was in her possession at the time of her disappearance."

"We'd hate to have anyone who just picked her up and dropped her at a gas station [to be reluctant to talk to us] because that person holds a very vital key to finding more information," Geller said. "Investigators are willing to work with that person because right now the focus is on finding Morgan and bringing her back to her family."

"Even persons who have not seen Harrington since her disappearance can still be of assistance to the investigation, Geller said. For example, if anyone has noticed someone else acting strangely since around the time of the disappearance, he or she is encouraged to report the information."

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2010/01/search-for-harrington-continues