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

[Concerned Mama]

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

BBM

Presumably NOT the distinctive Swarovski necklace that is reportedly still missing, right? Was she wearing more than one necklace that night?

 

[Conductor71]

BBM

Presumably NOT the distinctive Swarovski necklace that is reportedly still missing, right? Was she wearing more than one necklace that night?

I am pretty sure that was later corrected by LE. It is the Swarovski necklace, but was not reported as missing right away.

LE released a photo of the necklace on November 13th but make no mention of it being missing. From everything that I have read the necklace is still missing.

http://www.readthehook.com/69516/hitchhiking-missing-morgan-harrington-sought-ride


This is the first I have seen of this info on cell phone usage though! (from same source)

"...police also want to hear from anyone who may have allowed a young woman to borrow their cell phone to make a call the night of the concert.

"We don't have any evidence she made other calls," Geller says, "but we'd like to know."

Explains why JM's cell phone records were researched...

 

[jbowman55]

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.

I hope I am right, because if I am, JM is SO up the creek without a paddle.

 

[Conductor71]

LE did not reveal the Swarovski necklace was missing until 2011, so I think the necklace misinformation was being used somehow to screen witnesses and suspects.
Of course, she very well may have worn another necklace given how little info LE has revealed.


Update in Morgan Harrington case: Necklace wasn't with body

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

BBM

Presumably NOT the distinctive Swarovski necklace that is reportedly still missing, right? Was she wearing more than one necklace that night?

I think they were playing games with that information.

 

[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.

Just a thought on this theory...if this cigar butt belonged to the victim, then that means another mixed profile piece of evidence, because JM's DNA would also be on it. Wouldn't dealing with a mixture take longer than it took for LE to announce this forensic connection?

 

[jbowman55]

Just a thought on this theory...if this cigar butt belonged to the victim, then that means another mixed profile piece of evidence, because JM's DNA would also be on it. Wouldn't dealing with a mixture take longer than it took for LE to announce this forensic connection?

It depends. If JM's DNA was on it but was only "touch" DNA, then it would most probably only be on the outside. DNA from saliva could presumably be found, unmixed, on the inside. Correct, in theory at least?

 

[ILOKAL]

It depends. If JM's DNA was on it but was only "touch" DNA, then it would most probably only be on the outside. DNA from saliva could presumably be found, unmixed, on the inside. Correct, in theory at least?

What do you mean by "unmixed"? TIA

 

[4 Free Speech]

Hi Everyone - Happy Thanksgiving!

I am confused with the whole cigar tip and forensics now. Who's dna is on the cigar tip? MH or JLM?

Can someone please do a scenario?

Thanks so much!

 

[ILOKAL]

Hi Everyone - Happy Thanksgiving!

I am confused with the whole cigar tip and forensics now. Who's dna is on the cigar tip? MH or JLM?

Can someone please do a scenario?

Thanks so much!

I gave my interpretation above on my Post #233. Others seems to think it is more complicated. I have also responded in other posts above, on this same page. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts as well.

 

[ILOKAL]

It depends. If JM's DNA was on it but was only "touch" DNA, then it would most probably only be on the outside. DNA from saliva could presumably be found, unmixed, on the inside. Correct, in theory at least?

Without knowing what you mean by "unmixed" it is difficult to respond. But as far as Touch DNA, I don't think so. There are guidelines for when and where to use and how to retrieve Touch DNA which are set out very well in the following:

http://www.acsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Williamson.pdf

 

[Piaget]

Aren't SKs known to use their trophies for masturbation?

 

[jbowman55]

Hi Everyone - Happy Thanksgiving!

I am confused with the whole cigar tip and forensics now. Who's dna is on the cigar tip? MH or JLM?

Can someone please do a scenario?

Thanks so much!

I don't think we have enough information to say for sure whose DNA is on the cigar butt tip. All I have been trying to do is to read the DNA statements precisely, and not jump to conclusions that cannot be reliably determined by the information in those statements.

I personally think that MH's DNA is on the cigar butt tip. But that is my opinion based on the way I'm interpreting the statement that says that the DNA from the cigar butt tip is a match to the DNA that was taken from "the majority of the interior of the black t-shirt."

I also wonder why it would even be worth mentioning to find only JM's DNA on a cigar butt tip in JM's wallet. So what? It means absolutely nothing. AND if LE needed/wanted a DNA sample from JM, they could have taken it when they arrested him in Texas. He was arrested on a Federal charge of being a fugitive from justice, which I believe gives LE the right to take a DNA sample whether JM wanted to give it or not. I don't know if they took a sample or not, but do believe at that point there was no reason for them to be "surreptitious" about it. I will look tomorrow and see if I can find a source for this - IIRC I've read somewhere that they had the right to take that sample.

ILOKAL, by "unmixed," I mean only one person's DNA. Evie was concerned that if JM's DNA was also on the cigar butt tip, there would have been a mixture of the DNA of several individuals. What I said was that if JM's DNA was touch DNA only, it would most likely be on the outside of the cigar butt tip, while MH's DNA would most probably be on the inside, if she was the one who actually smoked the cigar. Her saliva would have been on the inside of the tip.

I do also notice that the statement about the cigar butt tip DNA does not state that a mixture of several individuals was found. Since JM presumably did touch the cigar butt tip in order to put it into his wallet, perhaps this does mean that only his DNA was on it. I just don't think we can know for sure without more, clearer information, and this isn't something about which we should make assumptions.

All imo.

 

[ILOKAL]

I don't think we have enough information to say for sure whose DNA is on the cigar butt tip. All I have been trying to do is to read the DNA statements precisely, and not jump to conclusions that cannot be reliably determined by the information in those statements.

I personally think that MH's DNA is on the cigar butt tip. But that is my opinion based on the way I'm interpreting the statement that says that the DNA from the cigar butt tip is a match to the DNA that was taken from "the majority of the interior of the black t-shirt."

I also wonder why it would even be worth mentioning to find only JM's DNA on a cigar butt tip in JM's wallet. So what? It means absolutely nothing. AND if LE needed/wanted a DNA sample from JM, they could have taken it when they arrested him in Texas. He was arrested on a Federal charge of being a fugitive from justice, which I believe gives LE the right to take a DNA sample whether JM wanted to give it or not. I don't know if they took a sample or not, but do believe at that point there was no reason for them to be "surreptitious" about it. I will look tomorrow and see if I can find a source for this - IIRC I've read somewhere that they had the right to take that sample.

ILOKAL, by "unmixed," I mean only one person's DNA. Evie was concerned that if JM's DNA was also on the cigar butt tip, there would have been a mixture of the DNA of several individuals. What I said was that if JM's DNA was touch DNA only, it would most likely be on the outside of the cigar butt tip, while MH's DNA would most probably be on the inside, if she was the one who actually smoked the cigar. Her saliva would have been on the inside of the tip.

I do also notice that the statement about the cigar butt tip DNA does not state that a mixture of several individuals was found. Since JM presumably did touch the cigar butt tip in order to put it into his wallet, perhaps this does mean that only his DNA was on it. I just don't think we can know for sure without more, clearer information, and this isn't something about which we should make assumptions.

All imo.

As to "unmixed" DNA, I would venture to guess, since there is no "barrier" that would prevent cells and/or saliva from entering or exiting the wooden cigar tip, that if more than one person handled the tip and another smoked the cigar USING the tip (or any combination thereof) that we would find both of their DNA on the outside AND inside of the wooden tip. I don't believe there is a way to prevent the DNA from becoming commingled in BOTH areas of the tip.

ETA: Also notice the article states that the wooden cigar butt was "taken" from his wallet when he was arrested! So apparently LE was NOT authorized to take an unvoluntary DNA sample in Texas, when he was arrested there, and therefore Texas LE used the wooden cigar butt to identify his DNA which, apparently, they did. IMO. Then when he returned to Virginia on the felony, Virginia LE took the buccal swab.

ETA: Also, the reason they chose to use the wooden cigar butt for DNA testing is because saliva is rich in DNA. IMO

 

[jbowman55]

I don't think we have enough information to say for sure whose DNA is on the cigar butt tip. All I have been trying to do is to read the DNA statements precisely, and not jump to conclusions that cannot be reliably determined by the information in those statements.

I personally think that MH's DNA is on the cigar butt tip. But that is my opinion based on the way I'm interpreting the statement that says that the DNA from the cigar butt tip is a match to the DNA that was taken from "the majority of the interior of the black t-shirt."

I also wonder why it would even be worth mentioning to find only JM's DNA on a cigar butt tip in JM's wallet. So what? It means absolutely nothing. AND if LE needed/wanted a DNA sample from JM, they could have taken it when they arrested him in Texas. He was arrested on a Federal charge of being a fugitive from justice, which I believe gives LE the right to take a DNA sample whether JM wanted to give it or not. I don't know if they took a sample or not, but do believe at that point there was no reason for them to be "surreptitious" about it. I will look tomorrow and see if I can find a source for this - IIRC I've read somewhere that they had the right to take that sample.

ILOKAL, by "unmixed," I mean only one person's DNA. Evie was concerned that if JM's DNA was also on the cigar butt tip, there would have been a mixture of the DNA of several individuals. What I said was that if JM's DNA was touch DNA only, it would most likely be on the outside of the cigar butt tip, while MH's DNA would most probably be on the inside, if she was the one who actually smoked the cigar. Her saliva would have been on the inside of the tip.

I do also notice that the statement about the cigar butt tip DNA does not state that a mixture of several individuals was found. Since JM presumably did touch the cigar butt tip in order to put it into his wallet, perhaps this does mean that only his DNA was on it. I just don't think we can know for sure without more, clearer information, and this isn't something about which we should make assumptions.

All imo.

Here is a statement that LE had the authority to take an involuntary sample after JM was returned to Virginia (after being arrested in Texas). So even if Texas LE didn't take the sample, I can't believe Virginia LE didn't take one, once they had the right to do it. And remember, this would have been BEFORE the first of October. And this would have been what they refer to as the "direct reference sample," much more reliable than any sample of his DNA that they'd get from an object stashed in his wallet.

"The only thing police have said about the visit to the police station, though, is that Matthew sped away from officers who had him under surveillance. Authorities didn't see him again until a deputy sheriff arrested him Sept. 24 on a beach near Galveston, Texas. By then, Matthew was charged with a violent felony in connection with Graham's disappearance.

That arrest gave police authority under state law to take a cheek swab without Matthew's consent after he was returned late Friday to Virginia, where he is being held without bond in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. On Monday, Virginia State Police announced that his arrest had produced a "significant breakthrough" that investigators of Harrington's death will pursue."

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Holding-Evidence-Hannah-Graham-277670271.html

I think I've about talked this out to everyone else's total boredom and/or disgust, so for me, going forward I'll just wait to see if we get any real clarification from LE. I hope they found MH's DNA on the cigar butt tip. It would help tremendously in the effort of convicting JM of her abduction and murder. Thanks, all.

 

[ILOKAL]

Here is a statement that LE had the authority to take an involuntary sample after JM was returned to Virginia (after being arrested in Texas). So even if Texas LE didn't take the sample, I can't believe Virginia LE didn't take one, once they had the right to do it. And remember, this would have been BEFORE the first of October. And this would have been what they refer to as the "direct reference sample," much more reliable than any sample of his DNA that they'd get from an object stashed in his wallet.

"The only thing police have said about the visit to the police station, though, is that Matthew sped away from officers who had him under surveillance. Authorities didn't see him again until a deputy sheriff arrested him Sept. 24 on a beach near Galveston, Texas. By then, Matthew was charged with a violent felony in connection with Graham's disappearance.

That arrest gave police authority under state law to take a cheek swab without Matthew's consent after he was returned late Friday to Virginia, where he is being held without bond in the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail. On Monday, Virginia State Police announced that his arrest had produced a "significant breakthrough" that investigators of Harrington's death will pursue."

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/l...Holding-Evidence-Hannah-Graham-277670271.html

I think I've about talked this out to everyone else's total boredom and/or disgust, so for me, going forward I'll just wait to see if we get any real clarification from LE. I hope they found MH's DNA on the cigar butt tip. It would help tremendously in the effort of convicting JM of her abduction and murder. Thanks, all.

Yes, that's what I said. The buccal swab was taken upon JLM's return to Virginia. It "seems" as though the wooden cigar tip was "taken" from him and tested upon his arrest in Texas as a preliminary step to matching his DNA to other evidence.

OT: Happy and safe Thanksgiving to all!

 

[Conductor71]

Yes, that's what I said. The buccal swab was taken upon JLM's return to Virginia. It "seems" as though the wooden cigar tip was "taken" from him and tested upon his arrest in Texas as a preliminary step to matching his DNA to other evidence.

OT: Happy and safe Thanksgiving to all!

I agree that the cigar stub could have very well been taken after arrest. My only hesitation is that the warrant states that Charlottesville Police handed off the swab to the state lab, so I sense that they obtained the swab early on during the car and apartment search. I don't want to get too hung up on dates and over analysis; however, that excerpt from the leaked search warrant is bugging me, so I took one last stab and am walking away to focus on family and cranberry sauce. Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

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.”
.

Looked at this with fresh eyes. I had at first thought both of these analyses were completed recently. I now don't think that is the case; they were trying to establish probable cause to charge JM with murder and seeking evidence to support it like JM's phone records from 2009 at very least. They had no need to obtain a warrant for his DNA because they already knew that cigar tip matches the Fairfax perp DNA.


2010- DNA mixture profile was developed from diffuse stain on MH shirt.
Mixed DNA profile from shirt checked against VA DNAbank.
Contributor to shirt profile matched foreign DNA profile in Fairfax scraping
Conclusion: Fairfax suspect could not be eliminated as contributor to MH shirt profile.

2012- FBI updates sketch in Fairfax case.

2014- September 19-22 Time frame for taking cigar butt sample. Sample originates with Charlottesville Police, IMO.
Hit found with Fairfax profile.

2014- September 30 MH and JM linked via Fairfax evidence press reveals.

2014- October 8-15 DNA profile developed from wooden cigar butt taken from JM.
Could not be eliminated as a contributor to the majority of sampling over a broad area inside the shirt.
Could not eliminated as a contributor to the mixed DNA profiles on MH's shirt.
Probability that a non-related random matching profile contributed to the DNA mix on the shirt is 1 in 72 bilion.

2014 - October 24 Buccal swab analyzed in lab and matched to Fairfax perp.

My take away: Already known that cigar tip matches Fairfax perp, but it needs to match MH's shirt as common piece of evidence and to establish contact. I am thinking not only that, but it would be vital for the foreign DNA from both JM and Fairfax perp be located in same areas and in same concentrations on the shirt. This sounds like an obtuse thing to say, but I think there is a lot of random DNA interference from other people on the shirt.

 

[Conductor71]

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.

Pretty sure there is likely a lot of DNA on that shirt! It ends up sadly as pretty weak evidence IMO.

Here is a bit of research on evidence with multiple DNA contributors:

Inferring the number of contributors to mixed DNA profiles.

From the article abstract:

Forensic samples containing DNA from two or more individuals can be difficult to interpret. Even ascertaining the number of contributors to the sample can be challenging. These uncertainties can dramatically reduce the statistical weight attached to evidentiary samples.

Have also read that it is largely a process of elimination that requires DNA samples from other non-suspects. This would apply to the Fairfax victim sample as well.. It is so much more complicated than those descriptions of "A DNA profile was developed from..."

 

[Xara]

Can someone give me a link re: the cigar butt? I am lost.
TIA

 

[4 Free Speech]

Can someone give me a link re: the cigar butt? I am lost.
TIA

http://wtvr.com/2014/11/24/search-w...n-between-jesse-matthew-and-morgan-harrington


“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.”

Thoughts and prayers out to Hannah's parents and family today.