Found Deceased VA - Morgan Dana Harrington, 20, Charlottesville, 17 Oct 2009 - #15

[davehead21]

BBM and respectfully snipped for space:

Thanks Dave, That was the "snap out of it" slap in the face I needed. lol

When this case first began I agreed with everything you just said. It is only now, years later and after much frustration that I find myself wanting some kind of closure for the Harrington's. I believe this suit may bring about some answers that have not been forthcoming.

You are absolutely right JPJA is not being sued it is RMC Events.
My feeling is that RMC is nothing more then the security extension of JPJA, and SECURITY is where I feel the problem began.

You are also correct about Morgan not being ejected by "security" , only warned when she wanted to leave. Agreed, that is what "security " stated.

Her friends, well, there is where I disagree, but I sincerely do hope they will be haunted by their lack of concern for Morgan, (considering they were such a CLOSE group) for the rest of their lives.

JPJA cannot be responsible for every druggie that they must keep out, but it is my belief there should be a contingency plan in place for those situations. They should at least have a "holding area" as an option.

.....and most importantly It is my belief that JPJA IS responsible for the arenas "security protocol"---which should involve adequate Security camera inside and out of their establishment . For me it has always been about the "security". After all wouldn't security be the logical place for someone in distress to turn to--maybe that's what Morgan did, and that was her Only mistake.

I continue to follow this case in hopes of an answer , if only for the Harrington's. Thanks for your input.:twocents:

I hope you're right in saying that the suit will bring some answers for the Harringtons. And don't get me wrong, I feel for them, I truly do. I also have a lot of respect for them with a lot of things they have done for Morgan. I think they seem like truly lovely people.

I would really like to see the Harringtons lobby for some sort of a law that says venues must provide a "safe place" for a person who has a valid ticket to an event (concert, game, etc.) who has found themselves outside of the venue. In an arena like JPJ or at a stadium, it could be an empty office-- just someplace!!

 

[Still_Seek_Answers]

When Morgans body was located, and the memorial was held, Morgans mom commented, and this may not be word for word, but she said there was a feeling of comfort in bringing her daughter home.....as a family member of a missing person I can understand very well what she meant. Nothing you can find out is worse than the things you imagine in your mind. I am not at all certain that the lawsuit, is really so much about money, IMO...the lawsuit is more about raising awareness, and attempting to change what IMO is a stupid rule....I would think keeping people safe would be more important than the cost of a few people maybe making it into the concert without paying.....If she had been allowed to re-enter, then most probably she would still be alive....IMO...that is what angers her parents the most, cause surely Morgans life was way more valuable, than the price of a concert ticket, and I feel that is what the true purpose of the lawsuit is. I could be way off base.......

 

[2sharpe2]

Hi Everone..Been a lurker here for quite awhile.. Been following this case from the beginning..But just wanted you all to know I read an interesting article from Blink at ************.com she has written several times on this case check it out..They have arrested a reserve deputy, former police officer for the University of Virginia for rape..Could he have something to do with this case?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I find it hard to understand the suit against RMC. I know many people are hopeful that they're doing it to sweat security for answers that for some reason the police couldn't get. That strikes me as wishful thinking. It's more likely that someone -- a lawyer in their community -- advised them that time was running out if they wanted to file against somebody, anybody. And perhaps a blogger with a wild imagination warped their thinking by insisting that someone in security at the event was behind her abduction and death (or a musician or a slave descendent -- lots of wild theories over there).

Mrs. Harrington is hoping to collect $3.5M, but I see a number of obstacles to that -- one being, as you noted, that it's not security's job to babysit adults. And unless RMC employs ticket takers who can see into the future, how can they be responsible for those who leave the premises and make their way to parts unknown where they later meet their demise? But the biggest obstacle is the concept of contributory negligence. Virginia follows a very strict old law that essentially says if the victim's own actions in any way contributed to whatever bad thing happened to them, no one else can be held liable. So the fact that Morgan was inebriated probably negates RMC's liability. And even if a jury finds for Morgan, the Harringtons will win $0.

Hi Soothsayer,

Yes there are some very strange theories out there, but the possibility of someone associated with "Security" being involved does not seem like one of them. Consider this: Without security cameras---anything could be likely--are we to believe RMC because they are the "Security Specialists"? That would be very convenient for them. Who monitors security? The bolded statement seems a bit harsh.God knows the Harrington's have every right to nail someone , anyone to the wall if it is proven they held back important information.

I am not accusing Security of murdering Morgan Harrington. I also do not expect RMC or JPJA to be held accountable for "babysitting adults" once they have left their premises. Problem with that is this question " was the outcome of Morgans interaction with RMC or JPJA a contributing factor to the events of that night"? For instance Morgan sustained an injury while in JPJA arena, do we know how that happened and if that injury was a contributing factor to her disorientation, leading her to exit the premises? If she fell and it was due to negligence on the part of the arena, I believe a lawsuit would be in order.

 

[soothsayer]

The law suit is interesting. It revolves around Morgan's chin scrape and RMC's failure to respond to it. And it alleges that because RMC didn't let her back in, she was left alone and isolated outside the arena where she was subsequently abducted and murdered by an unknown individual. "As a proximate result of this breach of duty by the defendant, the plaintiff's decedent suffered a horrible death."

But was she alone and isolated? She had a phone, but didn't try to call anyone. Did RMC force her away from the relative safety of the arena entrances, or did she take it upon herself to leave the grounds to hitch a ride with a stranger? Is it RMC's fault that she ended up dead after she left the arena and the grounds, when we have no idea what chain of events led to her death? Where is the suit against the person or persons who sold/gave her liquor and/or drugs -- which probably led to both her chin injury and her poor decision to hitch hike?

 

[otto]

The law suit is interesting. It revolves around Morgan's chin scrape and RMC's failure to respond to it. And it alleges that because RMC didn't let her back in, she was left alone and isolated outside the arena where she was subsequently abducted and murdered by an unknown individual. "As a proximate result of this breach of duty by the defendant, the plaintiff's decedent suffered a horrible death."

But was she alone and isolated? She had a phone, but didn't try to call anyone. Did RMC force her away from the relative safety of the arena entrances, or did she take it upon herself to leave the grounds to hitch a ride with a stranger? Is it RMC's fault that she ended up dead after she left the arena and the grounds, when we have no idea what chain of events led to her death? Where is the suit against the person or persons who sold/gave her liquor and/or drugs -- which probably led to both her chin injury and her poor decision to hitch hike?

My understanding is that Morgan chose to leave the arena to smoke even though there was a smoking area inside the arena. After she was outside, she was not allowed back in. That was a known rule. Since she was not allowed back in, she left the arena. After that, she may have been hitchhiking, which ultimately resulted in her murder. No one but the murderer is responsible for what happen to her at the end of the night. No one but Morgan is responsible for her leaving the arena.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

:twocents:

My understanding is that Morgan chose to leave the arena to smoke even though there was a smoking area inside the arena. After she was outside, she was not allowed back in. That was a known rule. Since she was not allowed back in, she left the arena. After that, she may have been hitchhiking, which ultimately resulted in her murder. No one but the murderer is responsible for what happen to her at the end of the night. No one but Morgan is responsible for her leaving the arena.

otto,

I was not aware she left to smoke. I heard her friend told her to try and get back in through the "smoking area". I do not think we know why she left.

You are absolutely right, the killer is the only one responsible for her death.
We do not know she was taken "off property". Could have been kidnapped from the parking lot where they found her handbag, we just don't have enough information . Her friends, and anyone else who claims to have seen her, have never come forward to answer questions.

I would think filing this lawsuit will expose some things we did not know about.....well we can only hope.:twocents:

 

[otto]

:twocents:

otto,

I was not aware she left to smoke. I heard her friend told her to try and get back in through the "smoking area". I do not think we know why she left.

You are absolutely right, the killer is the only one responsible for her death.
We do not know she was taken "off property". Could have been kidnapped from the parking lot where they found her handbag, we just don't have enough information . Her friends, and anyone else who claims to have seen her, have never come forward to answer questions.

I would think filing this lawsuit will expose some things we did not know about.....well we can only hope.:twocents:

"Police say she exited the arena to have a smoke, but was not allowed to return"

http://www.examiner.com/crime-media-in-national/morgan-harrington-last-seen-on-bridge

 

[soothsayer]

R.U.Kidding, independent witnesses placed her on the bridge, and a tracking dog confirmed. Those dogs aren't fooled by doubling back on one's own trail, so it seems more likely that she disappeared from the bridge (where she was last seen and last detected) than from the parking lot (where her purse was found).

 

[soothsayer]

otto, there was alot of speculation (and loosey goosey reporting) early on as to why she left the arena -- to smoke, to use the bathroom, etc. In the end, no one seems to know exactly why she left. Perhaps we'll learn what excuse(s) she gave the guards for leaving, but even then it's probably going to be tenuous.

 

[soothsayer]

The civil suit filing states that Morgan left the arena "for reasons currently unclear." So there you have it.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

The civil suit filing states that Morgan left the arena "for reasons currently unclear." So there you have it.

Soothsayer,

WOW---Would love to read that civil suit---could you point me in the right direction for that?
Much appreciated---would help me with the facts!

TIA

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Great catch! Here is a link to the original story. The website that was linked up there is rather offensive. (quote snipped by me)

http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-03-03/news/dp-local_sexoffender_0304mar04_1_object-sexual-penetration-assaulting-hampton-city-jail

Hi Pomegranate,

Just been reading this thread to catch up with this case:waitasec: and saw the POI you were lead to on this website.

Yikes! If these are the types of men that are being suggested as a suspect I am going to go out on the proverbial limb and say......NO WAY!
That is why I question the "hitchhiking". The only way she MIGHT is if she thought he was "security". Now he may have forced her in, but in a 5 minute window seems unlikely don't you think?
The witness statement( really paraphrased) "9:30 on bridge,approx 9:35 gone" In a five minute window? This must have been the first car to stop--seems to me she still had some choices, why go with this guy?

 

[soothsayer]

R.U.Kidding, you have to order it by mail from the clerk of the court. It's a brief (pardon the pun) 4 pages that will answer absolutely zero questions. In fact, it doesn't say much more than the pertinent points I noted. That she went to a concert on Oct. 17, that RMC is responsible for security, that she went to the bathroom and somehow injured her chin, and that unknown people reported it to security but they didn't respond. And that she left the arena for reasons currently unclear and tried to get back in, that the guards didn't let her back in nor did they report her injury or her attempts to get back in (report to whom, it doesn't say). And then, as a result, she was left isolated and alone (with a phone and a lot full of people she interacted with, but the suit doesn't say that) and at some point, somewhere, was abducted and murdered (was she?), and that RMC should thus pay $3.5M.

Ok, further they say that they should have known she was in need of assistance and that someone who looked like her had suffered an injury. And that regardless of her injuries, they should have let her back into the arena (despite the policy, but it doesn't add that bit). And because they didn't, she suffered a horrible death.

Now, others have raised great points about this. What if she had left and bought a winning lottery ticket by requesting a quick pick at the exactly right moment; would RMC be able to claim part of her winnings by saying she wouldn't have been in the position to win it had it not been for their enforcement of JPJ's policy?

It could also be a problem (for determining liability) that her time of death is not known. I mean, is there a difference --liability-wise -- between her being abducted from JPJ premises, being abducted away from JPJ premises, or voluntarily catching a ride to a party or residence where she hung out and had a good time for 2 hours, 4 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, a full week, and THEN met her untimely demise? Is it still RMC's fault if she died a week after she left the show? A day? An hour? Where does their liability begin and end?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

R.U.Kidding, you have to order it by mail from the clerk of the court. It's a brief (pardon the pun) 4 pages that will answer absolutely zero questions. In fact, it doesn't say much more than the pertinent points I noted. That she went to a concert on Oct. 17, that RMC is responsible for security, that she went to the bathroom and somehow injured her chin, and that unknown people reported it to security but they didn't respond. And that she left the arena for reasons currently unclear and tried to get back in, that the guards didn't let her back in nor did they report her injury or her attempts to get back in (report to whom, it doesn't say). And then, as a result, she was left isolated and alone (with a phone and a lot full of people she interacted with, but the suit doesn't say that) and at some point, somewhere, was abducted and murdered (was she?), and that RMC should thus pay $3.5M.

Ok, further they say that they should have known she was in need of assistance and that someone who looked like her had suffered an injury. And that regardless of her injuries, they should have let her back into the arena (despite the policy, but it doesn't add that bit). And because they didn't, she suffered a horrible death.

Now, others have raised great points about this. What if she had left and bought a winning lottery ticket by requesting a quick pick at the exactly right moment; would RMC be able to claim part of her winnings by saying she wouldn't have been in the position to win it had it not been for their enforcement of JPJ's policy?

It could also be a problem (for determining liability) that her time of death is not known. I mean, is there a difference --liability-wise -- between her being abducted from JPJ premises, being abducted away from JPJ premises, or voluntarily catching a ride to a party or residence where she hung out and had a good time for 2 hours, 4 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, a full week, and THEN met her untimely demise? Is it still RMC's fault if she died a week after she left the show? A day? An hour? Where does their liability begin and end?

Well I certainly appreciate you saving me the time and money of securing this report, Thanks.I see the points you are making, and "liability" is the question?

 

[soothsayer]

I was hoping to read clues in the civil suit to see i they were suggesting anything nefarious about the security cameras or anything else, but they don't mention them at all. It really seems pretty plainly to say, "Hey, if you had saved our daughter (from herself), she'd be alive today." After all, their org is called "Help Save the Next Girl." They're hurting because no one saved Morgan. They're upset that RMC didn't save Morgan -- even though the events that led to her death seem to have taken place away from the venue.

BUT...many things could have saved Morgan. Had the friends acted differently, she'd be alive. Had there not been drinking/drugging, she'd be alive. If her cellphone had been in better shape (not prone to losing is battery as her dad has noted it was), she might be alive. Had her folks not bought her tickets, she'd be alive. RMC was kind of the last official body that had a chance to influence the outcome, but was it their role to do so? Obviously they didn't know she was about to go out and meet up with a psycho, if that's what happened.

They do know she was warned that if she left she couldn't reenter, and that she left despite that warning, then wanted back in. At that point, she's a walking liability to RMC. What if she came back in and got hurt? What if she hurt someone else -- falling off a balcony onto them? What if she managed to OD on something in the arena? What if she went back in, was still in a spat with her friends, and stormed out again -- or had a change of heart and turned right around and left right away? Letting her back in wouldn't have guaranteed that she was going to be ok that night, and might not have changed the outcome at all.

I know folks think the arena should be made to set up a Morgan Harrington memorial time out area for drunks who leave and want back in. Imagine the real liability for JPJ in trying to keep drunks in a drunk tank together where they might fight, get hurt, drop dead, be disruptive, etc. Plus, can you even legally detain people who wish to leave? How do we know Morgan wouldn't have flatly refused such an option. And...how many people who leave concerts and are denied reentry end up dead? It has to be extremely rare.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I was hoping to read clues in the civil suit to see i they were suggesting anything nefarious about the security cameras or anything else, but they don't mention them at all. It really seems pretty plainly to say, "Hey, if you had saved our daughter (from herself), she'd be alive today." After all, their org is called "Help Save the Next Girl." They're hurting because no one saved Morgan. They're upset that RMC didn't save Morgan -- even though the events that led to her death seem to have taken place away from the venue.

BUT...many things could have saved Morgan. Had the friends acted differently, she'd be alive. Had there not been drinking/drugging, she'd be alive. If her cellphone had been in better shape (not prone to losing is battery as her dad has noted it was), she might be alive. Had her folks not bought her tickets, she'd be alive. RMC was kind of the last official body that had a chance to influence the outcome, but was it their role to do so? Obviously they didn't know she was about to go out and meet up with a psycho, if that's what happened.

They do know she was warned that if she left she couldn't reenter, and that she left despite that warning, then wanted back in. At that point, she's a walking liability to RMC. What if she came back in and got hurt? What if she hurt someone else -- falling off a balcony onto them? What if she managed to OD on something in the arena? What if she went back in, was still in a spat with her friends, and stormed out again -- or had a change of heart and turned right around and left right away? Letting her back in wouldn't have guaranteed that she was going to be ok that night, and might not have changed the outcome at all.

I know folks think the arena should be made to set up a Morgan Harrington memorial time out area for drunks who leave and want back in. Imagine the real liability for JPJ in trying to keep drunks in a drunk tank together where they might fight, get hurt, drop dead, be disruptive, etc. Plus, can you even legally detain people who wish to leave? How do we know Morgan wouldn't have flatly refused such an option. And...how many people who leave concerts and are denied reentry end up dead? It has to be extremely rare.

Sadly it would only take ONE....and one is too many.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Soothsayer,

I guess the civil suit is open to interpretation. The Harrington's do not seem that unreasonable to actually think it was any ONE action that caused their daughter's death. It was a "perfect storm" of unfortunate incidents and choices that led to the ultimate person responsible for her death, and that is her killer.
You could drive yourself crazy with the "what if's" . It just is what it is ---easy coming from me---I tend to be a "fatalist". Sometimes that is the only way to make sense out of the senseless. IMOO

 

[soothsayer]

R U Kidding, yeah, it's hard to know how to read the civil suit. Mrs. H did say in an early Hook interview that it might be their only shot at a trial. And that the $3.5M would be useful in their awareness efforts and other charitable good works. But as I've said, that pesky contributory negligence thing VA has is going to thwart their ability to collect. If they're after a policy change (about no reentry -- common among many large venues) then I wonder why they wouldn't go after JPJA instead of RMC.

 

[soothsayer]

It would be interesting to know the origins of the 'no reentry' policies that are so common these days. I imagine they were in response to bad things that happened when people were allowed to come and go as they please -- in which case you have to wonder which policy protects more people. The greater good and all that.