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

[MJPeony]

Last I checked a headline does not prove anything. Headlines are often misleading and put a spin on the facts. I usually end up reading the article or fact check it with a better journalistic source. There is a wealth of information here:

“‘Forensic evidence’ basically means scientific evidence,” he said, “pretty much anything they find that links a person to a scene or to someone else.” That means it could be that investigators tied Matthew’s DNA to some discovery from the Harrington case, but not necessarily. The link could be hair, fibers, fingerprints, even an object.

“In other words, it could be anything, really,” Heilberg said, and the purposely vague wording and the timing of the announcement might suggest police are sitting on something less than a slam dunk.

http://www.c-ville.com/questions-remain-police-link-hannah-graham-suspect-morgan-harrington-case/

I'll just speak for myself here: If it's hair, fibers, fingerprints, or an object that shows JM "has been linked to the 2009 unsolved murder of Harrington" (nbcwashington), then that's good enough for me at this point. I'm not part of his trial by jury. Yet...

Otto- and others such as Heroine- have provided numerous links to trustworthy new sources (I realize some will question all MSM, but they are reliable enough for me when taken in aggregate here). I believe these statements, and LE's as well, over a defense attorney in C-ville any day (your provided c-ville.com link). JMO.

 

[Heroine]

What are we here for if no links matter because all media lies. The name of this site is WEBsleuths. So what do we have to go on if not the media, here anyway?

 

[cluciano63]

Morgan's parents did not link Hannah's disappearance to Morgan's murder.

I did not say that?

 

[ksj3]

I don't think that Morgan was just a skeleton ... pretty sure that there was tissue remaining.

There's a link for that (parents talked about reconstituting tissue, etc.)....somewhere in this thread or the ones leading up to it.

Thanks for the formula. Amazing stuff, science.

 

[GeeButtersnaps]

What are we here for if no links matter because all media lies. The name of this site is WEBsleuths. So what do we have to go on if not the media, here anyway?

Very well said..if we are ever going to try to "sleuth" and come up with possible explanations,theories, etc for various cases we have to put faith in reliable sources that are referenced it's that simple..

 

[LG3]

I agree with you. I have great admiration for the Harringtons who have kept on this fight and search for whoever killed their daughter without a lot of support. They've made themselves the support. It appears that who they believed killed their daughter indeed was a serial rapist/killer. Though I know they have some inside info about their daughter's case, as they did get the official autopsy report, I still would not take what they say as absolutel. It may even be true, but not in a form that is admissable in a court of law, be something reasonable but not truely proved. A reason LE does try to keep info about these things to a minimum, is that 's it's to easy to postulate and then express a possibility as a truth.

Even with what LE says, what can make its way into evidence can be quite different. So, a lot of things are up in the air as to what actually happened in those 3 rape cases. Hopefully we find out about this ilnk. It would be preferable that one perp did all of this, and that he gets locked away for life.

I think Morgan's parents have hinted through Gil Harrington's poems and statements to the media that Morgan's cause of death was either blunt force trauma, or she at least suffered blunt force trauma while being murdered. Since we know the Fairfax victim was choked and beaten, IMO, it's likely JM's chooses to both beat and choke his victims to death. It seems, based on the rape aspect of his history, his murders are very physical in every which way. JMO.

 

[FindHG]

So as they gather on the bridge to mark the fifth anniversary of Morgan’s disappearance, the Harringtons will also be thinking about Hannah and appealing for continued vigilance in the search. Because, Gil explains, even if what’s found is death, that is infinitely better than finding nothing. “When you recover the body, then you know that no one is going to do anything else to them. You cannot hurt my kid anymore.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...53e-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html?hpid=z3

 

[Heroine]

There were no strong leads on who had killed their daughter, but within a few months, says Gil, they were told of a forensic link to a 2005 sexual assault in Fairfax City. And they were told something else: that investigators would probably find their daughter’s murderer “from evidence from another body.” From the next body.

“Something in me reared up and said, ‘Maybe so, but I’ll be damned if I just sit back and wait for it to happen. I’ll fight,’ ” says Gil.

So sad, but very telling. I almost cried reading that. Thinking about what that would be like.

And they are okay — though forever altered — in part because of Gil’s fundamental belief that the “nature of life and this existence is towards good.”


“So if that’s true, despite all appearances, good is trying to show up. But you have to be willing to accept it,” she says.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/family-of-morgan-harrington-urges-vigilance-in-search-for-hannah-graham/2014/10/16/1ae302a4-553e-11e4-892e-602188e70e9c_story.html?hpid=z3
I believe that is true in this case. She's a strong woman and she stood up and fought for these girls and as sad as it is to say, she paid the price, her daughter is gone but it was because of MH that it may be possible to get JM off the streets once and for all.

 

[ksj3]

"It would take only an afternoon to obtain the DNA profile and run it through a databank to link it to other cases, Benjamin said."

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

 

[Conductor71]

It seems like it would be difficult to avoid this information.

"A forensic connection has been made between the disappearance of University of Virginia student Hannah Graham and the 2009 murder of a student in Charlottesville.

Virginia State police announced today that the suspect who has been arrested in connection to Graham's disappearance has some physical connection to the death of Morgan Harrington. Harrington was a student at Virginia Tech who disappeared after attending a Metallica concert in Charlottesville near the University of Virginia in 2009."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-ha...nce-tied-2009-murder-police/story?id=25840656

Not factual based on the VSA report. Call it grammar, semantics, sensationalism, media bias...they are drawing conclusions that have yet to be substantiated.

 

[Emaa]

Not factual based on the VSA report.

It's early. What is VSA?

 

[Conductor71]

Obviously, if we're going to say that the media, police, and everyone know nothing, then we too know nothing.

In context:

"Charlottesville defense attorney David Heilberg, who isn’t involved in the case, said the language investigators have used leaves a lot of questions.

“‘Forensic evidence’ basically means scientific evidence,” he said, “pretty much anything they find that links a person to a scene or to someone else.” That means it could be that investigators tied Matthew’s DNA to some discovery from the Harrington case, but not necessarily. The link could be hair, fibers, fingerprints, even an object."

Quoting a defense attorney to provide balanced reporting is a bad thing? In comparison to local ABC affiliates who draw conclusions with nothing much to support them? With balance we have journalism; without it we have propaganda.

Given that, I will take the balanced, unbiased, fact checked, consistent, and widely respected local reporting of Courteney Stuart at C-ville any day. Just a personal preference.

 

[wall0214]

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.

The police/FBI have never said that Morgan was raped. If the perp in her case was linked to a rape in Fairfax, I'm not sure why LE wouldn't release the fact that Morgan was raped as well - that's not a detail that would hurt the investigation if released and would indicate at the minimum, that a potential serial rapist as well as murderer was among us. I think it's very likely that Morgan was raped, but given the likely condition of her remains, that may not have been able to have been determined, but it may have been inferred. Again, we don't know, because we don't know what the evidence consists of. Where did you get from my comments that "JM went out looking for bodies to rape?" In my comments, I said:

"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."

I'm not doubting that Morgan was likely raped, I'm simply saying that we don't have evidence/proof of that fact and the Harrington's saying that she was raped is not "proof." As for making "assumptions," - it happens in lots of cases by family members - I'd dare say that Alexis Murphy's family has assumed that she was raped, but they don't have her body/remains to know for sure and even if they did find her remains, it's likely that they won't know.

 

[otto]

Not factual based on the VSA report. Call it grammar, semantics, sensationalism, media bias...they are drawing conclusions that have yet to be substantiated.

Who is drawing conclusions that they cannot substantiate?

Who is "they"? In context, it seems that the suggestion is that "police are drawing conclusions that have yet to be substantiated". If so, on what is that statement based?

 

[jamicat]

I think that a lot of the info that the Harringtons have released are from the coroner's report. They did get that report after the autopsy. That a coroner concludes certain things often have not been upheld in the courts when judges and juries have decreed that those conclusions had reasonable doubt to them. What really happened to any victim is not 100% explainable without clear video. Even victim statements, perp confessions, expert analysis have ended up being proven incorrect.

But at this point, for discussion purposes, as we do not have to stick by the standards of a court, and we'll never 100% know for sure, nor would anyone, we can go for the most likely possibilities, keeping in mind that they are not certainties.

We'll know for sure what DNA evidence, forensic evidence LE does have to link JM to Morgan's case in time. LE does have something. It's what they do not have , that may always be subject to speculation.

For now, it doesn't matter really whether MH was murdered, raped, body beaten up before or after she died. That her body was found in that field after she disappeared from Charlottesville is a good indicator that someone did her harm and right now we have a second disappearance with a forensic link between the two cases.

 

[jamicat]

Not factual based on the VSA report. Call it grammar, semantics, sensationalism, media bias...they are drawing conclusions that have yet to be substantiated.

Until it all goes to court and a verdict is received, they are all non substantiated. That's why there is a trial to substantiate the mound of evidence.

When we find out exactly what the forensic link is that LE has reported they have tying JM to MH's case, we'll have a better idea about things. All we really have right now is that LE has come up with a forensic link.

 

[otto]

Quoting a defense attorney to provide balanced reporting is a bad thing? In comparison to local ABC affiliates who draw conclusions with nothing much to support them? With balance we have journalism; without it we have propaganda.

Given that, I will take the balanced, unbiased, fact checked, consistent, and widely respected local reporting of Courteney Stuart at C-ville any day. Just a personal preference.

There's nothing wrong with quoting an opinion from a lawyer that defends criminals. It is normal for defense lawyers to cast doubt on everything that investigators say. That's what they do for a living.

 

[otto]

The police/FBI have never said that Morgan was raped. If the perp in her case was linked to a rape in Fairfax, I'm not sure why LE wouldn't release the fact that Morgan was raped as well - that's not a detail that would hurt the investigation if released and would indicate at the minimum, that a potential serial rapist as well as murderer was among us. I think it's very likely that Morgan was raped, but given the likely condition of her remains, that may not have been able to have been determined, but it may have been inferred. Again, we don't know, because we don't know what the evidence consists of. Where did you get from my comments that "JM went out looking for bodies to rape?" In my comments, I said:

"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."

I'm not doubting that Morgan was likely raped, I'm simply saying that we don't have evidence/proof of that fact and the Harrington's saying that she was raped is not "proof." As for making "assumptions," - it happens in lots of cases by family members - I'd dare say that Alexis Murphy's family has assumed that she was raped, but they don't have her body/remains to know for sure and even if they did find her remains, it's likely that they won't know.

The 2005 victim was raped. Morgan was murdered, and DNA was found on her body three months later. Hannah is missing. Jesse Matthew is charged with intent to defile Hannah. Is there any doubt that Jesse's intent in abducting women is related to sexual offense?

As to why police cannot state that Jesse is guilty of raping Morgan, I suspect it's because there is no eye witness. It has to proven in court. Morgan's parents, no the other hand, know where the DNA was found, and there's nothing preventing them from stating the obvious ... assuming that the DNA was found in reconstituted internal organ tissue.

After four months in a snowy landscape, how likely is it that DNA is found on a piece of clothing or jewellery? I don't think it's very likely, especially given other cases where DNA under fingernails is useless after a couple of days of exposure.

There's common sense, and there are court verdicts. Do we need to wait for a court verdict before we can connect the dots and come to a conclusion?

 

[wall0214]

The 2005 victim was raped. Morgan was murdered, and DNA was found on her body three months later. Hannah is missing. Jesse Matthew is charged with intent to defile Hannah. Is there any doubt that Jesse's intent in abducting women is related to sexual offense?

As to why police cannot state that Jesse is guilty of raping Morgan, I suspect it's because there is no eye witness. It has to proven in court. Morgan's parents, no the other hand, know where the DNA was found, and there's nothing preventing them from stating the obvious ... assuming that the DNA was found in reconstituted internal organ tissue.

After four months in a snowy landscape, how likely is it that DNA is found on a piece of clothing or jewellery? I don't think it's very likely, especially given other cases where DNA under fingernails is useless after a couple of days of exposure.

There's common sense, and there are court verdicts. Do we need to wait for a court verdict before we can connect the dots and come to a conclusion?

I've already said multiple times that she was likely raped:

The police/FBI have never said that Morgan was raped. If the perp in her case was linked to a rape in Fairfax, I'm not sure why LE wouldn't release the fact that Morgan was raped as well - that's not a detail that would hurt the investigation if released and would indicate at the minimum, that a potential serial rapist as well as murderer was among us. I think it's very likely that Morgan was raped, but given the likely condition of her remains, that may not have been able to have been determined, but it may have been inferred. Again, we don't know, because we don't know what the evidence consists of. Where did you get from my comments that "JM went out looking for bodies to rape?" In my comments, I said:

"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."

I'm not doubting that Morgan was likely raped, I'm simply saying that we don't have evidence/proof of that fact and the Harrington's saying that she was raped is not "proof." As for making "assumptions," - it happens in lots of cases by family members - I'd dare say that Alexis Murphy's family has assumed that she was raped, but they don't have her body/remains to know for sure and even if they did find her remains, it's likely that they won't know.
The 2005 victim was raped. Morgan was murdered, and DNA was found on her body three months later. Hannah is missing. Jesse Matthew is charged with intent to defile Hannah. Is there any doubt that Jesse's intent in abducting women is related to sexual offense?

With all due respect, your comments are contradictory:

"After four months in a snowy landscape, how likely is it that DNA is found on a piece of clothing or jewellery? I don't think it's very likely, especially given other cases where DNA under fingernails is useless after a couple of days of exposure."

If DNA can't survive under fingernails, how's it going to survive on tissue exposed to the same elements?

 

[Heroine]

The 2005 victim was raped. Morgan was murdered, and DNA was found on her body three months later. Hannah is missing. Jesse Matthew is charged with intent to defile Hannah. Is there any doubt that Jesse's intent in abducting women is related to sexual offense?

As to why police cannot state that Jesse is guilty of raping Morgan, I suspect it's because there is no eye witness. It has to proven in court. Morgan's parents, no the other hand, know where the DNA was found, and there's nothing preventing them from stating the obvious ... assuming that the DNA was found in reconstituted internal organ tissue.

After four months in a snowy landscape, how likely is it that DNA is found on a piece of clothing or jewellery? I don't think it's very likely, especially given other cases where DNA under fingernails is useless after a couple of days of exposure.

There's common sense, and there are court verdicts. Do we need to wait for a court verdict before we can connect the dots and come to a conclusion?

I didn't think our job had anything to do with a court trial. We are here as sleuths to find info on the internet to investigate the matter. We are not lawyers or judges, that is another part of the process, just not our part. Investigation takes just using a little common sense and some facts help aid the process. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, but as for me I believe she was raped because her parents said so. As a parent, that is not something that could easily come out of your mouth if it wasn't a fact. I mean really, would you go around saying my child was raped if you didn't know? That would be a hard thing to say or think and to assume that would be ludicrous. JMO
There was an article somewhere that stated that the body was somewhat preserved due to extreme temperatures that winter. I'll go look for it.