Security failure? Morgan Harrington's family refiles complaint

On the same night it barred an injured and disoriented Morgan Harrington from reentering UVA's John Paul Jones Arena during a Metallica concert in October 2009, the firm providing concert security helped an intoxicated off-duty Fairfax police officer attending the show to find a safe ride, according to an amended complaint against Richmond-based RMC Events, filed in Charlottesville Circuit Court by Morgan's mother, Gil Harrington.


The amended complaint, filed Tuesday, March 26, asks for $3.9 million in damages– up from the original $3.5 million– and offers greater detail than the original complaint filed by Harrington in Roanoke County Circuit Court in October 2011. Among the allegations added: that Morgan, a 20-year-old Virginia Tech student, had suffered a two- to three-inch gash on her chin (that was bleeding "substantially") and a serious head injury, and that RMC staffers ignored her distress and prevented her from rejoining her friends, even though on other occasions, RMC had allowed concert attendees to break the no-reentry policy to retrieve their wallets from their cars.

Furthermore, the complaint cites the frequently violent themes in heavy-metal music songs, as well as 40 reported assaults that occurred within a half mile of the arena in the three years prior to Harrington's disappearance and death as evidence that RMC acted with negligence in barring her reentry and should have known serious harm to her was a possible outcome.

"As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered," the suit reads.

Messages left for RMC Event management were not returned by press time.

As previously reported by the Hook, after being denied reentry to the arena, Harrington interacted with several concertgoers and, according to police, members of the UVA men's basketball team. She was last seen hitchhiking on the Copeley Road Bridge around 9:30pm, something her parents say was out of character. Her purse was found in the overflow parking lot adjacent to the UVA track the following morning. Her skeletal remains were found three months after her disappearance on an Albemarle County farm about nine miles away. Her death has been linked by DNA to an unsolved 2005 Fairfax sexual assault.

"We are trying very hard to make something positive come from the fact that our daughter was killed," says Gil Harrington, reached by phone. "Part of it is to continue to solicit information so we can find this particular killer and get him off the streets."

Among the positive steps the Harringtons have taken is the launch of Help Save the Next Girl, a nonprofit program aimed at increasing safety awareness among college students in particular.

The civil suit is a "natural corollary to that program to the extent that it highlights the importance of third-party awareness," says the Harrington's Charlottesville-based attorney, Lee Livingston, in a prepared statement.

"It isn’t enough for young women like Morgan to be vigilant. Occasions will arise when young women need others to attend to them and offer reasonable care to them," Livingston continues. "Some persons attended to Morgan and were helpful on a dark night in October 2009. This case may shed light on whether others who saw her in distress acted in ways to keep her out of harm’s way."

While the lawsuit is about accountability, Gil Harrington says, any judgment eventually awarded would also enable her and her husband, Dan, to do work in Morgan's memory to help prevent other violent crimes.

"There's no amount of money that would make this okay," she says, "but there's a certain amount of money that I can do a lot of good with and, given the chance, I intend to."

Read more on: Morgan Harrington


I applaud the Harrington's for the continued fight and for keeping Morgan in the news, but this lawsuit is a bit of a reach - no?

I don't think it is a money grab as much as they want a judgment or settlement to let them think she acted the way she did because of a head injury rather than typical teenage stupidity. They have been concerned about the public perception of her actions since day one. The case will probably settle as an insurance company will be involved and won't want to pay through and then risk trial but I don't see it being a successful case if it did go all the way.

I too applaud the Harrington's and I am truly sorry for their loss but a lawsuit? Keep searching for her killer because he/she or they are out there. You can't expect two different people to do the same thing when it comes to re-entry or looking out for an ex-police officer. If it was the same person then yes, then they are showing bias. There are a lot of things to take into consideration, but filing a law suit is to much.

The lawsuit will cause a policy change and evaluation of practices at the Arena and that is a good thing. The amount of good the Harrington's can do with any lawsuit settlement is more than any of us could do to bring awareness to campus crime.

While I have had some problems wt the Harrington's expectations in accountability based on some of Morgan's actions, I think it is relevant that security had time to help an intoxicated officer that night, but not her. Many security employees are off duty officers themselves, and I can see some real bias here in treatment. They didn't need to let her enter, but they certainly could have called the on duty police to help. Then the worst that would have happened is Morgan ended up in the drunk tank for the night.

Based on some witness accounts she might not have been presenting herself the best, but that's not a reason to not take action.

I should say, I can see the possibility of real bias in the difference of treatment. This certainly does not have to be the case, and I was not there.

i am truly sorry for the Harrington's loss. And I compliment them on their cause to prevent this from happening to anyone else. RMCs policy of no re-admittance is firm and standing - its UVa's policy at any event, concert, sporting, etc. and most other colleges I know of. "No re-entry" is clearly printed on every ticket - she was not illiterate. An inebriated police officer likely was sober enough to identify himself by flashing a badge. What has never made sense is why Morgan left in the first place - and why and where was she going to hitch hike to? It's not her fault - not blaming the victim, but there were a series of bad decisions made this tragic night.

What a joke. Ridiculous lawsuits like this are what is wrong with America. This is going to do absolutely nothing to help find the killer, which is what her parent's focus should be on. Morgan acted in an irresponsible way that night and it ended incredibly tragically. To blame (and sue) others is irresponsible and unproductive. I am shocked other commentors are supporting these people.

"the firm providing concert security helped an intoxicated off-duty Fairfax police officer attending the show to find a safe ride,"

And where was the prior DNA from Sketch found ? Fairfax . Not saying at all that the PO is Sketch, but it doesn't seem plausible he drove down by himself. THAT definitely is a lead I'd follow up on. My eyeballs almost fell out when I read that.

As to the lawsuit. Keep in mind, more is gained from filing a lawsuit than money.

Old timer, Kevin and TheDude, I do agree with some of your statements. I am not blaming the victim either, but where is the accountability of Morgan. To sue RMC's is ridiculous. By Virginia law, there must be disclosures on printed publications of do's and don'ts, because of things like this. Also, you have to click the box before completing your order that you acknowledge and have read ALL vital information. You can't blame RMC if this is there policy. If you do not take the time to read it, then that is a problem with that person.

At this point in time, there is no reason to continue to blame the victim for putting herself in harm's way. She paid the ultimate sacrifice for a bad decision. Lots of bead decisions were made that night, to include the friends who left her behind. The issue (if I'm understanding this correctly) on the table is that the Arena was not consistent with decisions. Why should any staff ignore a bleeding woman? The story has so many points that have been presented over the years that this one piece cannot detail it all. However, I say good for the Harrington's for pursuing a lawsuit. Their tenacity to find the truth is hard to match.

The Harringtons are trying to rewrite history. We already know she had been drinking and was probably on drugs. Her behavior IN the concert at her seat, pre-alleged injury, dancing wildly and soooo thirstily bumming drinks from the patrons behind her, coupled with a fight with her friends, tell you that her erratic behavior was not the result of some fancied concussion. Good god, how low have they sunk that they are spewing b's absurd line of logic? Greedy greedy. Can= wait for the testimony on drug use to shed a little more light. They've already admitted to the drinking. Bring on the depositions!

The suit still makes quite a leap, that she was murdered because no one patched her boo boo. Hoo boy. It takes all kinds.

Multiple "witnesses" came forward after that night claiming that they offered help to Morgan, and said she refused... guess they will sue those folks next for not forcing their "help" on her.

When will RMC have a chance to present its witnesses? Will they also make sure it's publicized? When will the parents accept and admit that Morgan put herself in a bad situation by getting drunk, doing drugs, whatever, and separating herself from her friends? Will they sue the friends, too? How about the person who gave her intoxicants? That is why she fell, isn't it? Why do the Harringtons even mention the violent nature of the band's lyrics if they are the ones who bought her the ticket in the first place? There are so many ways RMC can get this case dismissed.

When this is a young woman you love, will you shrug and write off your loved one's death the way you're willing to write off Morgan's?

Curious how the officer presented himself.

"Hey guys, I have had more than I should tonight. Could I get some help getting home safe?"

or was he outside pounding on the door and yelling and acting crazy?

I dont know, but I can bet that RMC had plenty of drunk and stoned crazy acting kids on their hands. Some blonde in a miniskirt pounding on the door was just one more...sadly.

Sounds like they should just have told Morgan no from the outset. What part of her plan seemed wise when she presented it honestly to her parents?

Holier than thou, I would neither shrug it off nor try to sue someone not at fault for $3.5M. It's this cash grab that's so distasteful. And the absurd assertions and innuendoes. "She was murdered directly because she was not allowed back in" or "heavy metal at the venue means that bad people are around". Um.....IN the venue, one would suppose. Why, the H's are trying to advocate for sending her back into harm's way!

Stuff and nonsense like that just shows how they are grasping at straws trying to find a scapegoat instead of accepting the sad fact that they lost their daughter through an exceedingly unfortunate series of events that night, in which her own behavior and decisions played a part. I can't wait to hear detailed descriptions of her behavior that day, pre "fall" if there even was one. Oh of course there was, her scrape has turned into a giant gash, spewing blood. Soon the rumor will have it that her chin was missing entirely like Michonne's pets.

Two sides, Ya think, Patch,

My initial comment about disagreeing some of the Harringtons' expectations was meant to cover - but not beat to death - that the victim did do a combination of things/choices that made her an easy target and difficult to help. I took a lot of flack on this forum for that...BUT....if Security has time to help another intoxicated patron, they have time to call the police over a patron who clearly was disruptive and publicly intoxicated. See where I am going? I think the money is really not realistic in terms of basica liability for the issue, but it should force a strong review of how to handle patrons like her in the future.

Yeah...right...RMC should have called the police on every disruptive, intoxicated patron... ummm... please send more cars Austin TX PD, everyone else East is busy....

So the result will be that the stadium helps no one from here on out. Maybe they didn't help her because they were busy helping the cop who asked politely for help instead of acting like a wasted school girl demanding to be let in. Bending the rules for one person does not mean you are obligated to end them for all. Each case is different and employees need discrestion to decide without fear of a lawsuit. Suppose they had let her in to help her with her cut and she had bolted for her seat or got into another fight inside and someone else got hurt (and sued asking why they let her back in against the rules)

Suppose she had stumbled into KFC on the way to the bridge and they had refused her service would they be sued too?

I wonder who will sue when they call the police on a person who appears drunk and is just wacky but misses the concert while the cops check out the allegation?

Keep warning women to be vigilant, keep lobbying police to address public intoxication outside the concerts but this is too much.

Read the lawsuit in its entirety and decide for yourself whether or not the Harringtons--and their attorney--are overreaching as they seek to hold RMC liable in their daughter's death.

The last line is most telling: The plantiffs demand a trial by jury.

Not by a judge, but by a jury...a jury--like all juries--that is easily led and inflamed by emotion.

Again, read the lawsuit.

This case will be settled out of court. Even if it is not, it will not lead to what the Harringtons hope it will lead to: information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible for their daughter's death.

What this lawsuit does do, though, is keep the story alive. That may be the Harringtons only hope, slim as it may be.

Under the Harrington's twisted logic, there is direct cause and effect with not being allowed to reenter, and the really bad thing that befell her later. But since the time and place and date and cause of her death are unknown, how can they say being locked out led to her death, which could have happened days or weeks later? Unless they can prove that she died of an infection from her allegedly scuffed chin, the suit against the venue seems moot.

To Anja Mima. You do not know Gil Harrington or her family & obviously have no compassion for the murder of their child. I do know Gil. She is kind and loving. She shares her nursing skills to those who really have a need, and you do not know about that. She is not "money grubbing". How dare you pass judgment on someone you do not know, and have no idea what she and her family have been through and will be faced with the reality of the senseless murder of their daughter for the rest of their lives. I pity you for your lack of compassion.

Stinks that their daughter was senselessly murdered -- as many others are in this world, sadly, and have been through time, and will be in the future undoubtedly -- but trying to pin this death on the venue is absurd. The venue didn't murder her any more than her parents putting the ticket in her hand murdered her. The bad guy murdered her.

The poor girl was murdered and her parents want answers ... answers they will never get. I don't understand how anyone with a heart writes nasty comments.....

It's for a jury to decide if the negligence of UVA and JPJ contributed to the abduction and murder of Morgan Harrington. This is precisely why we have a judicial system. Reasonable men may argue that Morgan would be alive today if she had not been denied re-admission.

Anja, you are the one with twisted logic. Every fact you recite is incorrect.
Genuinely sorry and ashamed to read such ignorant and mean-spirited comments about the brutal murder of a young woman in our town.

There is a time to follow policy and a time to act like a decent, thinking, compassionate human being. IF she was bleeding from an injury to her face when she tried to re-enter the event, and IF the people manning the door saw that she was injured and still refused to let her re-enter, and failed to call the authorities - then I hope the Harringtons win this case. What a world we live in, where anyone would choose to ignore an injured fellow human being asking for help because of "policies". Ridiculous.

There is no way you that any reasonable person would assume that a person denied re-entry to a concert will automatically be murdered. Now, reasonable people DO assume that hitch hikers are taking an unnecessary chance with their safety, which could (and in this case, seems to have) end in murder. Even that's an extreme view -- most hitch hikers aren't assaulted much less murdered, but they certainly increase their chances by putting themselves in the hands of strangers.

But there's no cause and effect that says re-entry denied = murder. That's sheer lunacy. one really, truly knows when or where or probably even how the poor girl died, which makes it even more ludicrous to say that being denied re-entry led to her murder. She might have gone somewhere and partied for days before it all ended so horribly. Can we even assume she'd be alive today if she'd been allowed to re-enter? No, because unless they arrested her and held her against her will, she might have decided to storm out again with a band-aid on her chin, and ended up in the same circumstance. Why not sue the basketball players for not giving her a ride? You could argue that if they had, she might be alive today. Why not sue her friends for not coming to her rescue? Why not sue Metallica for having a concert that day in that place? IF they hadn't, she'd be alive today. There's no cause and effect between any of those things except that if she hadn't decided to hitch hike -- even though she had other options, like staying put, calling a cab, catching a bus, calling her parents or other friends -- she'd be alive today. That's the truth that's so hard to swallow: her own decisions put her in danger. The bad guy killed her. RMC didn't kill her. Metallica didn't kill her. (Note: pretty lousy to suggest that the concert had violent lyrics that attracted bad guys, after all the help and money Metallica has thrown to the family. Nice.) The concert didn't kill her. Her friends didn't kill her. The people who offered to help her or didn't offer to help her didn't kill her. Her parents are wishing someone could have saved her FROM HERSELF. We wish that, too. That's the whole name of their movement: help save the next girl. Save the next girl from herself.

Well said Anja.

Exactly, Anja Mima. I think most people see this for what it is, and it may actually be hard to find a jury that will decide against RMC.

I'd like to know how she got the injury. I was in Virginia that night, but way south of Charlottesville. What I can tell you is, I believe that the P.I. in Florida and the bounty hunter in Pennsylvania are on the right track -- that the perp(s) is/are a serial killer who attack women who look similar to "someone." (I think they're actually looking for a woman who ran a salon in the Reading, PA area and may have been involved in a rape video ring, plus her brother went to jail for working for a meth dealer and cooking it in Louisiana.) I don't know what their beef with the salon owner was, but I assume it had something to do with the rape videos or the meth trade.

Anyway, these are predators from New Jersey/Pennsylvania, and the cops and FBI know all about them. I mean, ALL about them, locations and full license tags, even a farm (not local) that they use.

What I'd like to know is, was it one of THEM who hit Morgan in the face, in order to get her to leave, and were they working with staff at the arena? I've noticed that food service employees in Pennsylvania seem to be "in the know" about rape videos, as if they're a part of the ring. Same problem in Virginia, perhaps? Or maybe security staff is their "in" at concerts? And what about that temp cop who was there that night, later arrested for raping a family member? Was he in the know, giving them info or even helping them? More questions from this than answers. It seems too convenient that a woman was injuried who looks a lot like other victims of the suspected serial killer(s). And then she was abducted and murdered right down the road from the arena.

I think locals can help if they've ever seen "home porno" videos, or if they've been solicited to buy meth. One thing I've noticed about the rape video ring is that the husbands/males who watch the videos seem to know they're rapes, and the wives/women don't. They're marketed to women by their husbands as "home porno" and not rapes, but they're really rape videos. And so if anyone has penetrated the Charlottesville "market" with "home porno"/rape videos, or with meth, then you need to call the cops and report it. They may be able to trace some of those reports back to the rape video ring and at least get these guys in jail for SOMETHING.

It's possible that the rape video ring gang has gotten off so long because one of the preds from Pennsylvania might be related to a former mayor of Orwigsburg, PA. Also one of the key players from Orwigsburg claims that he used to work as a drug informant for the Pennsylvania State Police, and he also used to haul classified cargo for the US government. Although neither are currently (too old) with the Army Reserves at Fort Indiantown Gap/Special Operations as the bounty hunter there thinks, and so they aren't the main suspects. They weren't the ones seen in the car of the suspect in Virginia later that night. But they may be a reason that the gang has gotten away with it so long -- they have someone in Pennsylvania with some sway who lies for them... But then again, cops in Pennsylvania (the state police there), NY's special victims unit, even the Stafford, VA deputies all had chances to take these guys down, and they didn't. So whoever's pulling strings for them manages to sway too many cops to disregard their victims. They also have a couple of accomplices from California that I know of, possibly linked to organized crime in Las Vegas, and I think that's where the snotty comments from California on Topix are coming from. They don't burn their home district, though -- you won't see remarks degrading the victims from New Jersey, New York, or Pennsylvania. That's their home turf, it'd be a giveaway.

There is plenty of blame to go around, though. Not just with the arena. Even people who buy meth or who watch rape videos contributed in a small way to Morgan Harrington's murder by supporting and sustaining the predators responsible. Morgan Harrington was pretty and had parents who kept putting it out there, and a famous band who got involved -- the other girls, however pretty, didn't get the media support, and so past failure after neglect after failure to lock that ring away, from both witnesses and police, are most culpable for the murder of Morgan Harrington. That and the failure by numerous states to do rape kits and recover DNA in a timely fashion. And don't let NYPD lie to you -- they don't process their rape kits right away. If they're too lazy to do anything, they just never pick the rape kit up. Failing to report crimes is how Giuliani got the crime rate down, and that's a fact. One of the key players in the rape ring has been a known stalker since the year 1993 at least, heavily in New York state. That's plenty of time to lock him away, but nobody ever gave a hoot enough to do it. That's how serial killers get away with it for so long, and people need to get motivated to catch people like that at the start of their criminal careers, not at the end when they're famous for being big killer sleazeballs.

Every concert I have ever attended there had cops all over the place and I am pretty sure there is an ambulance somewhere too. Doesn't that make the responibility for public safety outside the arena their domain?


I am inclined to agree with what you say. But it does raise even more questions as to why the police were not called over in this case. I am not really blaming the event location, but I am saying that drunken erratic behavior is an expected thing, and police officers are first and foremeost..peace officers. It isn't just an intoxicated lady getting kidnapped and murdered, it's an intoxicated lady or man getting behind the wheel of a car, it's the parking lot knifing. It's all the costs that society has to pay for in these events.

This is the first that I heard she was not drunk but injured. What did her freinds say about her condition?

Unless the parents and their lawyer have some good evidence, they could end up looking sleazy.

For RMC to be legally liable it would have to owe a duty to Morgan, it would have had to have breached that duty, and the breach must have been then proximate cause of her death. The first 31 paragraphs of the complaint go into great detail about how RMC had a duty to Morgan and how it breached that duty. But then, a single paragraph, number 32, says "As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered." RMC should have filed a demurrer - a legal pleading that says that a complaint that simply states conclusions without facts should be dismissed. Simply saying RMC not lettting her back in led directly to her her abduction and death is just a conclusion. There simply have to be "facts" alleged. Because no one actually knows what exactly happened to Morgan (was she abducted in the parking lot? somewhere else? how was she killed? did she drink or take drugs after leaving JPJ? etc.) it is simply impossible for the lawyer to actually allege the "facts" - no one knows those facts. For that reason, the complaint should be dismissed.

Some might say "but facts might be uncovered in the lawsuit that could show RMC is responsible". That may be true, but lawsuits aren't supposed to be filed until the facts are known. Imagine, for instance, that you were at a park, and someone else at the park at the same time you were died later that day. Should a lawyer be permitted to sue everyone who was at the park in the hope that facts might be uncovered in the lawsuits that would reveal what caused the person's death? The legal answer is no - the plaintiff has to have enough facts at the beginning to be able to say honestly that the breach of duty led directly to the death. In the complaint here, there is not a single "fact" that shows RMC's actions led directly to Morgan's death.

These legal points won't matter, however, unless RMC files that demurrer - which is decided by a judge. If RMC doesn't challenge this lack of facts now, then the case will likely be headed to a jury. Most juries don't understand the intricate legal details. It is entirely possible that a jury will think a) RMC wasn't very nice and they probably should have let Morgan back in, b) that wasn't nice or it was inconsistent for RMC to let other folks back in, c) it is horrible that Morgan died, and d) RMC probably has a lot of money and the money could go to good use. As a legal matter, though, that would be a terrible outcome.

The outcome would mean that every establishment would be faced with liability if something happened to the patron after he/she left the establishment. Imagine, for instance, that a patron of ACAC hurt his/her arm. The patron then leaves ACAC, gets into his/her car and later that day crashes and dies. Should ACAC be liable for failing to treat the patron's arm? for failing to stop the patron from driving? for failing to prohibit the patron from leaving ACAC's premises?

Unless RMC's actions were the direct cause of Morgan's death, then, as a legal matter RMC should not be liable.

Reasonable men may differ.
It's for a jury to decide.
I look forward to the case brought forward by Mr. Livingston on behalf of the Harrington family.

With respect to Dan Friedman, not all issues go to a jury. Instead, if asked, the judge makes an initial call as to whether there were "facts" alleged indicating all of the necessary elements of the case. If the law was so broad as to allow folks to sue everyone who "might" be responsible, and then let a jury decide who pays what, then Morgan's family should sue every other concert goer, everyone in the parking lot, everyone who drove by, the band, the band's crew, UVA, and anyone else and then let the jury decide which of all of them should be responsible. I hope that is not the system we have.

Legal, I respect your point of view.
I trust the process and believe it will work out for the best. I also believe that this community needs to hear this lawsuit.

On NBC29's Facebook page, in response to an article about the family of the lady killed crossing Putt Putt Ct by a driver who had a stop sign and was turning right onto Rio, there were tons of "money grab" comments. This guy was careless and a woman died as a direct result of his carelessness.

It is hard to square the above with all the "have a heart" comments here by people who think RMC effectively abducted and murdered Morgan by having the same "no re-entry" policy every venue nationwide.

I hope Morgan's killer is caught soon, and then the Harrington family can sue him (or her, or them). They are directly responsible, not RMC. I sympathize with the family but this tragedy has driven them off the deep end. Getting $3.5M from RMC's insurer will not "save the next girl."

The Virginia State police have not released a cause of death, a toxicology report, or the autopsy report. it seems possible that Morgan 's injuries could have been incurred if she was run over by farm implements in a shallow grave on the farm where she was found. An autopsy should have been able to tell whether or not that was the case.

In one incredible statement after Morgan was found the Virginia State Police said it was a homicide but they were looking for a cause of death. it doesn't get any weirder than that.

Then you have the JPJ Arena and the state police doing the soft shoe about what the video tapes show.

In the most cynical act imaginable you have UVa angling to put a plaque on a bridge that is safely off University property. As if they wanted anything other than to distance the school from any responsibility.

3.9 million is pocket change out of the penny jar for UVa; 39 million might get someone's attention. In any case there. Is no way UVa will let this go to trial. LegalEagle to spelling out clearly how RMC should not be held liable for whatever later occurred to Morgan Harrington.

You should reach out to counsel representing RMC because you are correct: absent a judge deciding for RMC in a demurrer, a jury can too easily be swayed into believing that RMC was at fault. (Frankly, a jury can be swayed into believing most anything, especially when a young woman's life has been cruelly cut short as was Morgan's.)

One other point of note: The witness indicates that she detected no odor of alcohol when she is alleged to have encountered Morgan in the restroom. Any (honest) 20-something concert-goer will tell you a large percentage of younger attendees are not under the influence of alcohol (after all, they cannot legally purchase it inside the venue) but of recreational pharmaceuticals, including but not limited to ecstasy. A drug like ecstasy (think unicorns) will induce a variety of symptoms to include confusion, muscle cramps, blurry vision, lack of awareness of pain--among others. Such disorientation could easily lead to a fall of sorts...or a concert-goer inadvertently ending up somewhere other than their earlier seat at the concert.

This is not to say that Morgan was under the influence of ecstasy or other drugs. It is, however, to say that simply because there was reportedly no odor of alcohol on her person does not mean that there were no other factors at play that evening.

UVA isn't being sued. RMC is. There will be insurance for this, so RMC is just at risk for the deductible. Virginia has a unusual and very strict contributory negligence rule that would protect RMC from any liability, even if it did owe a duty to Morgan (and that is very questionable) and if it were negligent, if she was even 1% negligent herself. If she acted the way she did because she had been drinking underage or was doing drugs, the case would likely lose on demurrer or summary judgment. That is why they pout the not intoxicated stuff in there. It is very hard to believe, and, if it isn't true, casts the plaintiff in a very poor light for making the allegation. If people want to help the next girl, they should focus on teaching kids how to avoid the behaviors that make them targets of criminals. No amount of effort is going to stop the bad guys from acting the way they do. Though no one wants to blame the victim, we have an obligation to teach potential victims how to avoid the behaviors that the bad guys are trying to take advantage of, and that sometime takes recognizing those behaviors in our loved ones IMO. Acting as though we have no personal responsibility and that some big brother will always watch out for us is counterproductive and is the type of attitude that, if taught to your kid, may make it more likely that the kid will act like Morgan did here.

Legal Eagle is right.
The dozens of times that Gil and Dan stated publicly that a C' ville man is responsible will come into the trial. Many other statements that Gil PUBLISHED directly state that she was hunted! The Attorneys for the security company are in a hard place. The PR firm for the Harrington's will play it up as a a poor victim's family vs a Goliath.

The serious problems are that Gil and Dan's own words tear down this statement :"As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered."

Their very own words conclude that a C'ville man murdered her. Now, is the jury to just disregard the 200 times the parents and PR firm have floated other theories? Then take this one seriously.

Are we to believe that this C' ville man pushed her down in the concert area, knowing no one would try to help her. Then leave, watch her, track her. Get her into his car, then hunt her as in a game, assassinate her like the Kennedy's!

Well if any of the hundreds of theories offered by Dan and Gil are even remotely true, then the security company could never have kept her from harm's way.

They better watch it, discovery is a two way street and there is a lot of money and promises floating around.

They need to move to the next phase of grieving and for the first time take responsibility for the 19 years that they had to raise her.

They cannot have it both ways, if they refer to her as a shinny girl, then they MUST take responsibility.

She was an adult, yes a very challenged adult! Address that in court!

A lot of parents who normally would not allow their kids to see an acid rock band would relent in this case since it was hosted by the University of Virginia. This concert was held under the imprimis of the University of Virginia, who did so, not for any educational reason at all, but only make a buck. UVa has a lot to be accountable for and trying to pull the strings behind the RMC facade ain't gonna work.

Why can't anybody get a straight answer about the inside and external security camera recordings? Why won't the Virginia State Police answer any questions about this case except in a stilted, formal, constipated manner?

@ ed March 27th, 2013 | 5:23pm

Very well stated! Every word!

This statement strikes right into the very public display of so called Health Proffessionals just melting down as Parents. Everything they know, every detail of their profession tells them to accept responsibility and they know their daughter would not want this to be dragged out. Yet, they themselves are giving in to the Evil of denial.

"Acting as though we have no personal responsibility and that some big brother will always watch out for us is counterproductive and is the type of attitude that, if taught to your kid, may make it more likely that the kid will act like Morgan did here."

To see how they act, must give us insight to mind of Morgan Dana Harrington. Her frame of mind is in question and certainly fair game. With parents behaving like this after 3 years it offers much more the reason of why Morgan put herself in harms way. It was in her DNA, not due to a Security Company and Dan and Gil know it!

This is a sad situation and it only tarnishes Morgan Dana Harrington!

Good thing he and she are not Captains of a ship, because they will do anything to keep the world from seeing their own faults. It is sad, and I pity them!

Their denial is eating at them every single day, in public!

Wow. This horrible tragedy could have been averted on so many fronts. The first questionable decision was to attend a Metallica show in the first place. The second would be one's attire. The third would be intoxicants and erratic behavior. The "no-re-entry" policy at the venue is questionable at best and infuriating... there are methods to prevent admission abuse. There were failures all around... and no one single entity can be blamed. To litigate this and blame a single entity is simply wrong.

Find and hang the perp.


I seriously doubt the no re-entry policy has anything to do with admission abuse, but to prevent people leaving the venue to get alcohol and come back in. Sure, they want to make a buck, but its a bit more than that. I don't really have that much of a problem with the policy given the amount of alcohol abuse that goes on at these types of events.

Perhaps what is more relevant is how we as a society begin to address the kinds of behavior and danger to society that these events bring together. They are magnets for drugs, alcohol, and plain bad people.Not everyone does it, but the % is far higher. It isn't just about protecting young ladies like Morgan Harrington from a series of poor decisions - it's about protecting the outside world from what goes on within. Yes, rapists will be at he edges of a parking lot in hopes of bagging a Morgan Harrington. Or any other female who happens to be in the vicinity. Its about the victims of the drunk drivers. Its about the neighbors who can't sleep but have to work in the early AM.

The friends already copped to the fact that she had been drinking. The cops have said it. Hell, the Harringtons have said it. Even more, they describe a DESIGNATED DRIVER for their underage daughter. Of course she was intoxicated or on something or other; it's probably the whole reason she scuffed her chin in the first place. The Harringtons are trying to rewrite history again to erase Morgan's contributory negligence. Can't unring that bell...

RMC did file a demurrer, well -- for the original suit. I assumed this amended suit was filed as a result of that, but maybe not? So doe RMC have to file yet another dermurrer?

The Harringtons are correct this is about accountability. They just don't want their underage daughter to have to take any for her actions that night. Had she been in her sober mind things would have been different.

Since the Harringtons have always been so public about how everyone but Morgan should be held accountable for her behavior that night, it has cost them the pity they so desperately crave. Except for the folks at their own Facebook page and website. Those are the only koolaid drinkers left. And people like George, above, who have for whatever reason, a need to see UVa blamed for this. It's has gone on too long. I think Sutton is right that maybe it was the Harringtons themselves who taught Morgan that she never had to be accountable for her own behavior, because there are always others to blame.

The University of Virginia hopped into bed with Metallica to make a buck, and only to make a buck; there was no educational or cultural benefit to the night at all. None. The state of the art security system apparently exists only to protect the University from the paying patrons, God forbid the recordings should show show any responsibility of the University to its' paying customers. And the state police seem to be quite OK with that.

Anyone with half a brain knows there is a lot of drug dealing going on in and around these rock concerts. Why would the University associate itself with this type of entertainment in the first place? Are they that hard up for money?

The amended complaint almost certainly was the result of the demurrer to the original complaint. A demurrer asserts that the complaint does not set forth sufficient "facts" to state a legal action. If the judge sustains the demurrer (agrees that there are not sufficient facts), the judge often grants "leave to amend". This simply means that the plaintiff gets to file an amended complaint adding more facts. The new complaint does add a ton of new details regarding "duty and breach". In fact, the first 31 paragraphs are entirely about duty and breach.

As I mentioned above, for the plaintiff to state a legal cause of action, the complaint must state "facts" that show RMC 1) owed a duty to Morgan, 2) RMC breached that duty, and 3) that breach of duty was the proximate cause of Morgan's death. The amended complaint alleges all sorts of new facts regardin 1 and 2. That is, the amended complaint says that RMC knew that concerts were dangerous places, and that Morgan had a cut on her face, and that RMC didn't do anything to help her, etc. What the amended complaint does not do, and I believe it cannot do, is to state "facts" in support of number 3.

The only thing the complaint says in support of number 3 is paragraph 32 - "As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered." Those aren't facts. That's merely a guess. Because no one knows when, where or how Morgan was killed, it is impossible for the plaintiff to do anything else but make a guess. And a guess isn't enough to file a lawsuit.

If Morgan had died in the parking lot as a result of a gang of thugs that frequented these concerts, then the complaint could allege facts - it would say "as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to provide adequate security and address the known gang problem, Morgan Harrington was assaulted and killed." Those would be "facts" showing that the breach led to Morgan's death.

As I mentioned above, if this trial proceeds, maybe facts will be discovered that will reveal that Morgan was abducted in the parking lot. But, at this stage, those facts simply aren't known. Trials are not supposed to be used for investigation, and so if facts are discovered that would not justify the filing of a complaint without facts to support it. Our system doesn't support plaintiffs or the state simply hauling everyone to court and letting the jury figure things out. Juries are not investigatory bodies. Imagine if everytime there was a robbery in a certain neighborhood everyone in the neighborhood was rounded up and charged and we asked the jury to "sort things out". Imagine if everytime there was a car wreck, everyone within 1 mile was sued and we asked the jury to "sort things out". That would be an incredibly invasive, expensive, and unjust way of handling things. Instead, our system demands that before a charge can be brought, or before a lawsuit can be filed, the accuser must have "facts" that indicate the defendant was responsible. Because no one knows exactly what happened to Morgan, it is impossible to say that RMC's policies had anything at all to do with her death. For that reason, RMC should file a demurrer and the court should sustain that demurrer.

Well the facts aren't known, are they? That's the whole point of having depositions and pre-trial fact finding.

UVa and the State Police get to sit on the evidence and the judge throws the case out because there is no evidence? I don't think the country is that far down the rabbit hole.

Legal, this trial is going to proceed, make no mistake, and it will go to jury. As George points out, UVA brought down the curtain on events from day one (for example, the management company at JPJ never made a public statement and never released video coverage) and the debate about Morgan's murder continues to rage unabated.
I'll make a suggestion for Mr. Livingston, which I am sure he does not need: jury selection will be critical. Any parents of teenage girls have walked in Mr and Mrs Harrington's shoes. They will award the family $39 million, not just $3.9m.

George and Dan, I must respectfully disagree. George wrote "Well the facts aren't known, are they?" I do agree that in the course of a trial additional facts are discovered that flesh out and give weight to the initial facts that are pled in the complaint. But the complaint has to state those initial facts. Simply saying, as this complaint does, that "RMC's breach led directly to Morgan's death" is not stating facts. It is a guess. A an example of a valid complaint would be "ABC company failed to fix the brakes properly and as a direct result the plaintiff's car veered out of control, killing the plaintiff." A has to "cause" B. A complaint can't just guess that A might have caused B.

If the legal system were as you want it to be, every single person who we could conceive of "causing" her death could and should be sued: All of the following could and should be sued in your system: Everyone in the parking lot (after all, if any one of them had acted, maybe Morgan wouldn't have died), Morgan's parents (after all, maybe if they had raised her better or not allowed her to go to the concert, or had arranged for a bodyguard, maybe Morgan wouldn't have died), Morgan's teachers (who conceivably should have done something to protect her), Morgan's friends (who lost her at the concert), the entire band (who must know bad people attend their concerts), every concert goer (maybe one of them saw Morgan bleeding and did nothing to help her), every cop at the event (why didn't they stop the killer, whoever that is), the UVA basketball team (who interacted with Morgan that evening), every person who drove by (if only they had stopped, Morgan might still be alive), anyone who interacted with Morgan later in the evening (maybe if they could have taken her in, she wouldn't have died), etc. etc. and we should just the let jury figure it all out.

That's not our legal system, though. The plaintiff has the burden of having a certain minimum number of "facts" before the plaintiff can even file a lawsuit. This complaint does not state a single fact that shows how RMC's action or inaction led directly to Morgan's death. How exactly did RMC's action or inaction lead directly to Morgan's death? Unless you can answer that question with anything but a guess or conjecture, the complaint is invalid.

Edited from LegalEagle (certain quotation marks and caps mine):

"...for the plaintiff to state a legal cause of action, the complaint must state "FACTS" that show RMC 1) owed a duty to Morgan, 2) RMC breached that duty, and 3) that breach of duty was the proximate CAUSE of Morgan's death. The amended complaint ALLEGES all sorts of new "facts" regarding 1 and 2. That is, the amended complaint says that RMC knew that concerts were dangerous places, and that Morgan had a cut on her face, and that RMC didn't do anything to help her, etc. What the amended complaint does NOT do, and I believe it CANNOT do, is to state "facts" in support of number 3.

The only thing the complaint says in support of number 3 is paragraph 32--"As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's breach of the foregoing duties, Morgan Harrington was abducted and murdered." THOSE AREN'T FACTS. That's merely a guess. Because NO ONE knows WHEN, WHERE or HOW Morgan was killed, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the plaintiff to do anything else but make a GUESS. And a GUESS isn't enough to file a lawsuit.

If Morgan had died in the parking lot as a result of a gang of thugs that frequented these concerts, then the complaint could allege facts - it would say "as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's failure to provide adequate security and address the known gang problem, Morgan Harrington was assaulted and killed." Those would be "facts" showing that the breach led to Morgan's death.

Because NO ONE knows exactly WHAT happened to Morgan, it is IMPOSSIBLE to say that RMC's policies had ANYTHING at all to do with her death. For that reason, RMC should file a demurrer and the court should sustain that demurrer."

The judge sustained the original demurrer, indicating that there were not sufficient FACTS to state a legal action. Even with the grant of leave to amend, the amended complaint does not include FACTS in support of their statement that RMC's alleged breach of duty was the proximate CAUSE of Morgan's death.

Rinse and repeat.

W/O knowing the facts, can you address the following (if you are indeed an attorney):
If RMC is being sued, why wouldn't the management company of the band be sued (or the party who contracted with RMC, which I would think would be the band's management company)? Is there a legal reason (precedent) OR is it because no new information could be gleaned from the band management organization regarding the facts surrounding her disappearance?

The latter, of course, would support the idea that the plaintiffs are filing this more for an investigative tool than a redress of damages.

R.I.P.: Johnny Cochrane

A caused B.
An injured girl was not re-admitted to venue because of rules. Girl ended up dead.
What more do you want?
Venue had a duty, to be sure. Venue, in fact, a year or so later, aknowledging duty, beefed up security inside and outside venue.
Be honest: RMC did a lousy job running JPJ for UVA.
This will be the mother of all lawsuits.

Liberalace, sometimes if an "agent" (the person acting) is liable then the "principal" (the person who hired the agent) could be liable. So, if the plaintiff thought the agent (RMC) was liable, it would a logical thing to sue the principal as well. I have no idea why the principal was not sued here.

A plaintiff is permitted to do discovery before filing a complaint. This is used when the plaintiff does not yet have the facts necessary to file a complaint, and hopes to use discovery to get those facts. There was a case a number of years ago where a plaintiff was hurt in an operating room, but could only remember the last names of the nurses and physicians who were there. The plaintiff sued every doctor and nurse in that county with the last names the plaintiff remembered. Of course, a number of the folks sued were not in the operating room. The lawyer who filed the suit was disciplined. The court who disciplined the lawyer stated that the plaintiff could have done discovery before filing a complaint to determine exactly who was in the operating room. Then a complaint could have been filed with accurate facts.

LegalEagle, I think you need to hit the books some more. I was involved with a manufacturer who was sued in the crash of the TWA 747 off of long island. My company only made the igniters that allowed the engines to be started. We were dropped out of the lawsuit in time but the initial list of defendants was longer than your arm.

I was also involved in the largest product liability ever awarded in North Carolina - 46 million dollars. In my opinion the Harringtons have the most backboard-shattering slam dunk I have ever seen.

So let me get this straight...

A person on their own leaves a bar. The bouncer refuses to let her back in on paper because of written policy, but also because she was so snookered that he would not have let her in in the firstplace if she tried to come through the door in that condition. A different bouncer bends the rules for another person who asks politely, risking his job in the process and somehow this bending of the rules by an employee now obligates the bar for whatever the cruel world does to the first patron after she leaves the bars property.

Or another question... Suppose she was simply unruly and drunk and the venue simply ejected her for being a danger to others. Does the venue have an obligation to call the police? If they had and the Police interviewed her and let her go would the Police now be at fault? Do they have to hire a fleet of babysitters to follow drunks and protect them to sobriety? Suppose they had patched her up, she chose to leave on her own anyway and they actually escorted her to the end of the property? Would they still be liable for her demise? Suppose she had the flu and went to CVS for nyquil and was kidnapped on the way home would you blame the pharmcist for not calling her an ambulance when she appeared sick?

We have no way of knowing whether her sobriety had anything to to with her kidnapping, perhaps she was simply overpowered by sheer strength from a very public location and was simply at the worng place at the wrong time.

I am sure criminals hang outside in the shadows at casinos looking for people dumb enough to count their winnings in the alleyways off casino property. So a Casino tosses someone for violating the rules by card counting and they leave and go count their money walking down that alley is the casino now liable for their losses?

People want to say that the venue should have known there would be drunk girls there and taken precautions. I say that their parents and friends should have known there would be drunk girls there and taken precautions since it is their children at risk. The venue is only risking money. The parents are risking presumably the most important thing th in their life. They didn't drop their child off at daycare, They dropped her off at a heavy metal concert. It doesn't take but a smidgen of knowledge to figure out what goes on there.
And lastly.. the venue has an obligation to the other 20,000 people there to make sure that they are safe from stumbling drunks and angry girls who could start a brawl or fall over a balcony and kill somebody.

This poor girl was the victim of a heinous crime and I would be happy to torture the offender for a few hours prior to electrocution, but it could have happened to anyone at where she was apprehended at anytime. Drunk sober, a nun. on the way to midnight mass. This is not about the concert this is about being vigilant and hoping for the best in a dangerous world.

Hoepfully he or they will be caught before someone else gets killed.

George, because the Morgan Harrington case is being heard in a Virginia state court, the law of New York, North Carolina, nor other states comes into play. With regard to various defendants being dropped out of the lawsuit you were involved in, my guess is that in each case the judge determined that there was no valid claim. In other words, the case, as against your company, never made it to a jury.

In the North Carolina case, my company was based in Alabama, the accident was in North Carolina and another manufacturer in Kansas was also sued. The 46 million dollar payment was made to settle the case before it went to trial.

There was another case settled out of court involving three Maryland men who fatally crashed in southwest Virginia. That case was settled by a Florida manufacturer before the case went to trial.

Not sure what you point is, that companies don't settle lawsuits they have no hope of winning?

Legal eagle,

Point of clarity. The 46 million dollars was an out of court settlement prior to trial, it was not an award by a jury.

Bill, you are right that a bar has no "duty" to a violent self-destructive drunk.
However, JPJ is not a bar. It is a university owned venue, where parents drop off underage kids for concerts or sporting events knowing that some supervision is in place, and where first-aid life-saving services are provided for those lucky enough to gain access to them.

@Dan Friedman, Morgan was neither underage (except for drinking alcohol, which she managed to do anyhow), nor in need of life-saving first aid. She became a murder victim when she made the unfortunate decision to hitch hike.

A caused B.
A girl was given concert tickets by her parents and permitted to drink. Girl ended up dead.
What more do you want? Parents must be to blame.

A jury can award the family $399 million if they want. They'll never see a dime because Morgan's contributory negligence will erase any such award.

Shame on the Harringtons. The lead singer of Metallica personally called Morgan's dad to offer his condolences and his help, and produced public service announcements to help find Morgan's killer. Metallica gave the Harrningtons nearly $100K (if you count the $50K reward money Metallica put on the table) --- only to have the Harringtons turn right around and use the lawsuit to say horrible things about heavy metal music and make outlandish allegations about how it causes violence -- all to continue to cash in on their daughter's death.

Shameful. Tsk tsk. They and their counsel should be horribly embarrassed to have filed this amended suit. I'm embarrassed for them, just reading it.

Something else odd, the Harringtons have started their own non profit: why not work with existing organizations that have programs that teach and promote safety for young women?
I hate to say it but how many non profits have been started in the last 20 or so years that duplicate existing long term organizations and turn out to be disasters?

@George and Dan

I am not quite sure why you assume a jury would fall to its knees and grant the Harringtons any money. Consider if you will that all the commenters here are people of a mindset that could end up on a jury, and decide otherwise. And that's assuming that it makes it that far. Please also consider that an injured or sick or drunk person has to allow themselves to be helped. If they are breaking a law you can't force them to do something.

When I was a teen, a female neighbor got drunk and broke bottles and cut her feet on them very badly. She was kind of noisy and we went over to see if we could help. Seeing the injuries we called an ambulance but she refused help. While concerned they said that she could not be forced, and...she was on private property and not breaking any laws, so the police could do nothing either.

We know Morgan was denied re entry, and we know she was not receptive to aid from others. maybe she was acting the way she was because of drugs or alcohol, or, to be nice, lets say a concussion. It's not reasonable to expect the average door security or people in the parking lot to discern that she was acting strangly from an injury, and make some kind of a special judgement in her case. And I think that's what this case is going to come down to, even if by some chance it does make it into court.

@Legal Eagle, I will only say that we need to remember that sometimes the law does not actually serve justice. Virginia law is antiquated in some ways and at times is unjust. I have probelms with what the Harringtons want but I will not say its simply because of the law.

So now we are supposed to let employees of various establishments determine whether or not they should detain us- yes, restrict our liberties pursuant to the fourth amendment- because they THINK we cannot take care of ourselves. Wow, looking forward to the false imprisonment lawsuits to follow. Along with assault and battery, etc... I feel for the Harringtons but enough is enough.

Bill, good observation. I suspect they started their own foundation for numerous reasons, including to be able to use its proceeds (seriously, wouldn't that be more fun than having a real job?) and of course to keep their daughter's name and likeness in the public eye. The latter serves to keep the hunt for the murder publicized (laudable) and to fulfill an ego need (understandable) and to give Morgan a sort of celebrity status and easy, one name recognition like Cher or Madonna. Observe that the original civil suit complaint called her "the plaintiff's decedent" and the new one refers to her as "Morgan" throughout. I guess they didn't think about calling her "poor, naive, innocent Morgan." Maybe the next filing will do that.


thanks for your comment. At the UVa-sanctioned concert there were UVa police, Charlottesville city police, Virginia State Police all on duty as well as a staffed first aid room with trained medical personnel. You have an impaired youth that only wants to get back inside to see the show she purchased tickets for. Tickets that paid for the band as well as the police and medical personnel that should have evaluated her medical condition.

Put it another way. You are having a backyard party to raise money for a charity. A kid in the neighborhood pays his dollar and is having a good time. He falls and cracks his head on the pool edge and starts acting strangely. He wanders out of your backyard and tries to get back in but you won't let him. The kid then stumbles into the street and is hit by a truck. You have no responsibility? Are you seriously suggesting that? Now further assume you have paid the local neighborhood doctor and policeman for first-aid and security and you did not have either of them evaluate the kid before turning him away.

Suppose you are having a frat party and some guy gets wasted and busts his lip and starts throwing crap, storms out of the party into the front yard and then wants back in because he "chipped in for the beer" You think they are obligated to let him in to start more crap?

No, you leave him to his own devices.

Suppose Morgan was a guy that ended up getting the hell beat out of him, robbed and killed would you still say that the venue is responsible? Doubtful.

If he is wasted and you have a policeman in the yard he gets busted, no?

George, not if he's pretty adept at avoiding anyone who looks like a policeman, even while smashed.

What the parents should be saying is, "man I sure wish she had stuck with her friends and not walked away from the arena. She'd be alive today." Hitchhiking is always a bad idea, how was anyone to know that's what she'd do?

I have served on a number of juries and during the interview process toxic or extreme people -- the type who rant on anonymous websites for example -- are quickly culled.

The thoughts on liability of venue for events happening right around the time that a patron leaves or is prevented from leaving are very important. If a patron is seriously injured and is denied reentry and dies from those injuries, maybe a venue would have liability. If a patron is rowdy and throwing punches and is allowed to come back into the venue and the patron then hurts someone, the venue maybe the venue would have liability. In Morgan's case, though, because we don't know when, how, or where she was abducted and murdered, we can't tie the denial of reentry to her abduction and murder. As I mentioned in a previouis post, if RMC knew that there were abducters in the parking lot at the time they refused Morgan reentry, and Morgan was then abducted in the parking lot, there might be liability here.

Do we want a system where a venue is held liable for every bad thing that happens to a patron who "might" be hurt later? Well then, venues should take car keys, they should lock the doors until everyone goes through a medical check, they should deny exit to those with any physical disabilities, they should deny exit to anyone with any mental disease, etc. I go back to my ACAC example. When a person injured his/her arm, if ACAC knew they would be liable for any car wreck later that day, they wouldn't let the person leave. They would take the person's car keys. If you think that venues won't want to face the public relations nightmare of denying exit to people, then the other result of a policy of strict liability would be soaring ticket prices, fewer events, and higher insurance rates.

I'll say it again, if Morgan was abducted in the parking lot, and if RMC knew that there was a risk of abductions, they would likely be liable. But, those aren't the facts here. We don't know when, where or how Morgan was abducted or killed. We cannot tie A to B.

@George, there are two things you are desperately trying to twist from reality into speculative wishes. The first is the assumption that somehow, UVA sanctioned this event, or made it a 'good' thing to do. Now, one of my sheepskins does come from that institution, and I do have some problems with their approach to violence against females, and violence and alcohol abuse in general, but I don't pretend that there is some sort of blanket for everything that happens in their facilities or on grounds. It's a Metallica concert. At the least you are going to get hearing damage.EVERY rock concert is dangerous, and EVERY rock concert I have been to has security and regular police outside and medical facilities INSIDE, and people ARE treated if they seek help INSIDE. Not kicking people in the shins outside in the parking lot.

You wish to turn the average person into a medical specialist in determining whether or not in the middle of a drinking bash someone has a concussion. You also want to assume that the person knew whatever scrape on her chin came from a fall. I can't tell you how many scrapes I have gotten on my chin over the years from things other than falls, and things that did not cause me a concussion. I

If a guy I don't know comes to some party - trying to compare a Metallica concert to a charity event is really pretty spurious - no one sees him fall, he walks off the property, and then is denied re-entrance because he is behaving badly, no, I do not have a responsibility if he goes off and gets hit by a truck. If at the gate he were staggering around and falling down, the moral thing to do would be to call 911, but it is not a duty. But if he is not, and after saying some mean words he walks off, then its done as far as a reasonable person is concerned, especially if he refuses help, as Morgan did.

Of course, I wouldn't have a charity event were people were getting drunk and screaming and yelling and acting like they do at a Metallica concert anyways.

This attempt to somehow place a degree of for-knowledge and expertise on the hands of the public and the gate personnel is what is turning people off on the Harringtons, and off of folks like you.

@Dan Friedman:

You are encouraged to pay closer attention to LegalEagle, who knows from whence (legal perspective) he speaks, i.e.,

A. if Morgan was abducted in the parking lot; and
B. if RMC knew that there was a risk of abductions; then
C. they would likely be liable.

But, those aren't the facts here.

We do not know:
1. when; and/or
2. where; and/or
3. how Morgan was abducted or killed.

As they say, you cannot get there from here.

On that basis I would suggest that your earlier assertions above that this trial will proceed and that a jury will award the family (the exaggerated) $39M are incorrect.

I do not believe that this trial will proceed, rendering everything else moot.

"I have served on a number of juries and during the interview process toxic or extreme people -- the type who rant on anonymous websites for example -- are quickly culled."

What, like you? Or George? I am not ranting and neither is LegalEagle or Bill Marshall and a few others. I agree that some on this site would get culled. Truthfully most if not all of us probably would be culled because of our knowledge of the case at this point. So would those who lost a child in a similar fashion. I have served on jury as well, and I am aware that that is where you actually 'make law.' Sometimes that's a good thing, because the law does not always serve the people well. But often the law does serve the interests of the public very well. If there were police all over the venue as you say, why are they not also being sued? If there is a group that truly has a duty to the safety of the public at all times, that one is it.

I suspect the person who denied Morgan re-entrance feels horrible about it, but I don't think that made it the wrong decision. Many times we regret things we do because of the outcome, but that doesn't mean our judgment in the moment was flawed or poor, or that we failed in our duty based on the events presented to us in the moment. Nor does stepping up security mean they are somehow admitting that they had a duty.

It's your wish to make up a fictitious name for yourself, and that's fine, but I have never posted anonymously

As they say, see you in court

I think that had she wandered out nto the street and gotten hit by a truck there MIGHT be a case because if they saw her that whacked perhaps they should have pointed her out to the numerous police and rescue squad people milling around that she presumabaly had to walk through, but to say that her abduction and murder was someohow the venues fault for not letting her back in when she could do harm to herself and others is ridiculous. Suppose she had gotten struck by lightning ? Suppose she had been attacked by a bear? The odds are probably about the same. They did not lock her out in the middle of a fiield she was left on the front entryway of a venue with hundreds of people including Police all within earshot. If she chose to wander off that is 100% on her and there is no way that the venue should have to protect itself from what appears to be ( in hindsight) a serial stalker.

and to Dan the "I have served on a number of juries" ... I always wondered who the guy was who wasn't smart enough to get out of jury duty.....

If Morgan had been allowed back in the best result would be she saw a band she had paid to see. In the worst outcome she would have been arrested for public intoxication and been placed safely in custody. The police of whatever stripe had the authority to investigate her unusual behavior did they not? Was that not what they were there for? There is no trampling on her civil rights here at all. How could she be a threat to anyone if she was inside the building with police and medical people around?

1) If the police "investigated" everyone who appeared intoxicated the stadium would be almost empty including the stage.

2) A drunk person stumbling around is a danger and the "worst" that could have happened could be that she took a fall from the upper balcony taking someone with her and landing on someone else. I would imagine at that point the family of the person who got crushed WOULD have a legitimte claim if they had let her back in against the rules. Remember the parents of the crushed person should be able to make a reasonable assumption that if people are not following the rules they WILL be ejected by security not ushered to a seat.

3) It is very good that people are asking these girls to look out for themselves and to be careful not to get in harms way in the first place. It is a shame that thats the case but that is life. In Phoenix the rattlesnakes are coming out of hibernation and heading into populated areas in droves looking for food. The residents need to be careful so they don't get bitten. That is the risk you take in life and all the laws won't fix it because all snakes and most serial predators don't read the rules.

What m sutton said, +100!

Wanna have some fun? Go through all of the posts and count the number of times the word "if" is used.

"If" Morgan had gone to see The Lawrence Welk singers, she'd probably be alive today.

R.I.P.: Frankie Yankovic

The Harrimgton’s say that Metal bands being booked ought to a signal to JPJA about the elements associated with them.

Well, the father brought the tickets, Their jobs and volunteer work intertwines with UVA and the whole institutional set up of hospitals and Universities. The mother helped her pick out the cloths, it is not as if their non-adult daughter told them she was going to a sleep over at a convent and then secretly went off to the BIG BAD EVIL HEAVY METAL BAND!

Both knew there was a designated driver. What they didn't know was that they were taking Morgan's car. Right there is one of the first of the of many lies to the parents, if we are to believe them.

Ironic after Metallica has been such a help, that the she allowed those words to be printed.

They just do not live in reality and it is apparent their daughter did not either. So if they were the so called parents of a shinny girl, have multiple degrees and are so darn smart, then why did he buy the tickets and parking pass. There is your liability right there.BUT, wait, she was 20, in the eyes of the law she could enroll in Armed Services, enter into contracts and balance a check book?

I would like for Legal Eagle to explain as best he can about the Virginia Civil court. Maybe explain the number of jurors, the need for a majority, 2/3rd or unanimous decision.

Also, is the monetary part considered in a different phase, does the judge have powers to limit or change an amount rewarded and explain a little more with an actual case [in Virginia] as to the plaintiff's contributory negligence rule as specific to Virginia Courts.

Her friends show that they are the very best friends. She did not have the keys to get into her car and run-over or kill many in a drunk driving accident. Good friends do not allow friends to drive drunk!

The friends are fantastic and they were doing the best thing friends can do! Not talking about their dead friend who they love. They do support many of the events that the Harrington's have done. They do attend, they always have pictures on their pages of a bright and very close to them Morgan.

I believe Gil just opened the door to all medical issues.

I think Gil is going to be very very very sorry that she has stated the things she has about Metallica and that she is deepening the lack of anyone coming forward.

Did her intoxication lead to the fall or did the fall lead to her acting intoxicated. Very simple, ask why the parents stated they had a designated driver. Ask the people interviewed in the stands that gave their association. Ask the "new" person if he is an expert on the smell of vodka, and just how close he got to her.

There is another account that states that prior to the last attempt to re-entry that she did have material taken from her bag / back pack. Also stated is that she was argumentative at that time. Prior to any fall! It is amazing the description of the bag. Right on the money, this from a witness there.

Was the DNA belonging to her on the shirt from Blood? These are facts. Remember the supreme court has stated that corporations have the same rights as people. Let the security company have the facts.

Did she have a cold that day, was she taking medication that states that drowsiness may occur and do not take with alcohol? Be careful just what you ask the friends, maybe one thing leads to another. Open the door and allow the security company to walk right in to every day life and get to her frame of mind.

What Anja Mima will say +101!

It's your wish to make up a fictitious name for yourself, and that's fine, but I have never posted anonymously

Whats that got to do with the price of tea in China Dan? it won't keep me off a jury and it certainly doesn't support a single one of your arguments. Sounds like you know deep down that you don't really have one.

Honestly, I don't care if she was drinking at age 20, but m-sutton is right -- the drinking + use of cold medicine or other over the counter/not so over the counter drugs probably precipitated her fall. She fell because she was already out of it; she wasn't out of it because of the fall. The friends can undoubtedly attest to what she drank and/or took that night, how she was acting before she took off, and her habits, and all of that should come into play at the trial.

I wish she had thought to call her parents, who doted on her and would have counseled her on what to do (wait in the library, hang near the entrance and listen to the show for an hour, etc.) or rushed to her rescue. Must be a reason she decided not to reach out to them.

It is nice to wish, but that was not going to happen. She had a LOOOONNNGG history of taking her batteries out of her phone. In the 18 months prior she had on many occasions left in the middle of a gathering with known friends to mysteriously return a day or two later. She even wrote of it.

There were even a few that thought she was having an affair with an older married man. Maybe, maybe not, but her behavior certainly would never indicate she would while in the "experience" reach out to Mom and Dad and they know that!

It also would not be uncommon for her to withhold from one or more of her friends actually what she held in her arsenal. She kept a pad lock on her bedroom and was quite secretive of her outings and some of her escapades, only ever so often hinting at her real nature.

And, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!
But to make her out as a saint that was no way capable of being responsible for actions due to the influence of a Heavy Metal crowd is so ridiculous, that to anyone in the real word is just a joke!

Whats next, a movie theater showing a rock show on film must then be responsible for children conceived due to the elements associated with the art that is preordained to cause sex and that the Theater should now pay child support, for all born nine months later in attendance?

Come on this is supposed to be land of Thomas Jefferson, not Jefferson Davis!

She was not a slave to other's thoughts and I am quite sure given a choice she would not like her name being used by her parents to put forth such garbage based on outdated and legally proven false and damaging websites.

They want it all ways, they want to show HER art, not her experiences. They go on Christian stations and act as if they are with the church, then they go online and welcome fortune tellers and loonies and what is next? Amend the suit to name "Blackened Recordings"!

Just sue Elvis, it started there in my home town right! Jesus!

Caesonia March 30th, 2013 | 5:05pm

Sadly your posting here may get you in trouble and cause problems if you do not answer the questions correctly when preforming your duty to report as a juror.

Doesn't take a legal eagle to answer that. There are many jury findings in criminal cases and a few in civil cases that caused dismissals and overturning of findings and even jury tampering charges.

Why waste your time with Dan and/or George? They are just getting you to play their game and distract you from focusing on the case in the article.

At George! Morgan was threat to everyone one the streets if her friends did not keep her from driving!

You said it best: "This attempt to somehow place a degree of for-knowledge and expertise on the hands of the public and the gate personnel is what is turning people off on the Harringtons, and off of folks like you".

Yes it is the beginning of the unraveling and even opens the door to lawsuits against the Harringtons.

m sutton, are you following the latest convoluted ramblings from the mind of shannon christine? Now kickee is friends with the bookkeeper!

A friend sent me a message from mom3. That's about all I know, is that she is about done with the Harrington's constant music bashing. She is the only one with a brain over there. I know exactly who kickee is and so does Ms. Stuart.

Ms Stuart broke the news and Blink till this day claims credit, but she not did interview him. The Hook did, and what in the heck does he have to do with the lawsuit and her not getting back in. She was using him for cover to act as if she was escorted.
They don't want him he is not going to help their case at all!

Nothing to do with entry! The woman did not want to be seen by cameras or anyone involved with police. That's her whole MO for her cup of tea!

Does anyone believe anything from BLINK? Really?


"Sadly your posting here may get you in trouble and cause problems if you do not answer the questions correctly when preforming your duty to report as a juror."

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. I would anwer the questions 100% truthfully and no other way. As I said earlier, it is highly unlikely anyone posting on this forum would get onto a jury involving this series of events if they were answering the questions honestly. They have too much knowledge and would be considered biased. It is irrelevant that they post anonymously.

But I don't think it will make it to court.

haha, B thinks that Morgan was trying to get kickee to suture the (now, suddenly) enormous gash in her chin. She's out of her mind.

The overwhelmingly obvious solution to the all-or-nothing issue of To Be or Not To Be let back in is for RMC (or any company overseeing such events) to simply provide an optional holding / waiting area for "problem patrons" duly being denied re-entry. A dozen plastic chairs in a space contained by a secured portable mesh screen, monitored by a video camera and intermittently patrolled by a staff member would do it (particularly for such a brief time). Thus Morgan's scenario could have been: "Nope. Can't let you back in, but rather than stumble off into the night with your intoxication, aloneness, blonde mane and outfit begging predation, we can escort you to our safe holding area where you will have the option to wait until the concert is over." This option protects patrons from themselves or predators, and the companies from liability for negligence.

matityahu, interesting solution. No way of knowing if she would have stormed out of that, too, though, and the Harringtons would still insist it was because of an (unproven) concussion and that RMC should have known that, and would still be to blame.

Now, even the Harringtons reluctantly accept that she was hitchhiking or at least mimicking it on the bridge. Remember the bridge and the ceremony for the plaque? Now, that is not patrolled by RMC, so is RMC to be responsible for the reputation of property that is owned by the Railroad, policed by UVA and sometimes C'ville police?

Where on earth does a Security Company covering a event at a venue have to evaluate the surrounding areas not in their contract? Morgan is not the only family member to have been on UVA property or to attend JPJA. So is this a double standard by the Harrington's for female's only. That is a very good question and I am quite sure it would be discriminating if RMC was to treat adults differently.

So is this suite about girls only, I mean really just apply the law and what is alleged. After the 4 previous years with another family member being there and the Family never knew about the alleged reputation of the area, why now? By the way Morgan was an adult!

This suit needs to be tossed, the amendment tossed, and even though the Love suite was a criminal case, fish expeditions are not to be allowed to be presented. If so, let RMC go fishing for seemingly unrelated events in the past.

Now in this day and age, if a young woman has a cell phone, I think it is save to assume she can call anyone to assist her and just stay close to the will call window or under lights near her car, or get this bright idea, call the police and tell them you need help! Now we know that was not going to happen, but how was RMC supposed to know that?

As to Caesonia March 30th, 2013 | 10:01pm
Your fine just fine. But jurors and witness evaluation are my life long specialty. It is a nice ace for a attorney to hold up his sleeve if a juror e-mails and has more than casual interest in a trial and this is to come to light after a judgement. It is a get out of free card.

Appeals and higher courts reversing lower court are more easily done with juror legalities than any almost any other reason. Now the frequency is not there but once brought to the attention of a judge, it is as close to a slam dunk as you can get.

Not you so much you, I just find it so juvenile for anyone to say they have insight to siting on jury. It is a science in its self. Civil juries are even stranger, just ask your legal eagle.

You want to judge a jury member, better be in court or have someone you trained in court every single moment they are in the room. What happens when there not in the room, other than deliberations means nothing, nada, ask the prosecution team about a little case with a dysfunctional family called the Anthonys.

Who hit it right on the head with the Love jury, just saying Virginia has a kind of unique system, but people are people!

Judges instructions are very important, but they are always under review by higher courts. Jurors have more power than anyone in normal life. Why do you think so many cases are settled. But this time, RMC is going to get some help from the industry, bank on it!

Witnesses, well I have to see them, hear them and watch them. I can tell you this, Dan and Gil will not be good on the stand, not at all!

Hadn't thought about them taking the stand. That should prove very enlightening at the hands of a skilled attorney. When do depositions begin?

I think 2 things: 1, this article is hastily and poorly written.
2, I'm guessing here, but I think this is correct - there is a limit on the length of time that the Harringtons have to compel RMC to give them information about the night of the Metallica concert. This civil suit is a way to force RMC to reveal any details they have not been forthcoming with since Morgan's disappearance, like why there was no surveillance video in this brand new state-of-the-art facility; what kind of background checks, if any, were done on their security staff, and what they revealed; why their security staff seemed to selectively implement policy, etc. I think the Harrington's want all the information they can possibly get from RMC before the law lets the clock run out on their ability to obtain it.

I have a couple of ideas:

UVa, under a spirit of reconcilation, refunds Dan Harrington the cost of Morgan's concert ticket and they call it even.

The Virginia State Police continues to sit on the evidence and continues to pretend they are working the case.

The local connected dope dealer, who in all likelyhood gave Morgan a fatal overdose after she called him to pick her up, can keep on dealing.

Go Hoos! When is the next rock concert on campus, er,... "grounds"? I want to send my neice.

I think it's overly generous to think the Harringtons are trying to compel RMC to release information. The police and the Hs themselves have never indicated that RMC refused to release any info, and godnoze the Hs are not shy about using the media to drive their agenda. Why not shame them publicly if that's what they are after? No, this is strictly a money grab. They know this has nothing to do with the crime and will not help solve it.

George, only problem is that she didn't make any phone calls except for calling her friends inside the arena.


Perhaps you don't recall the VSP investigator asking anyone to come forward if Morgan had asked to use their phone? Back when the VSP had someone on the case who cared.

George, I do recall that. We never did hear if that panned out. I'm guessing not.

I suspect the police were trying to rule it out, since her phone became disabled. I'm sure they did rule it out, since it seems pretty clear that she ended up hitching.

George March 31st, 2013 | 12:59pm

There is a fact and some investigating details that have not been release and I can tell you to do a few things.

Now depending on your age and use of modern technology, how many numbers do you remember in your head? Just try it, no looking into an organizer, no pieces of paper in your wallet.

She did have contact with another person during the time between showing up in the lot and midnight a least one time, and for very good reasons it is believed another attempt

It is very clear she was not trying to call Mom and Dad.

So who was she trying to call? It has not been released who she called [not the call between the friends inside], but a few other than just I question the dismissal of this person as being possibly involved. I only state that you will also remember Ms Geller also changed positions on record as to the verifiable likelihood that Morgan was seen way into the next morning.

If that is the case ,and it was printed [a very strange thing due to the information VSP does release] the original time line used to evaluate who should be ruled out changes.

I do know of two very good reasons that the time line changes. I can only tell you that a tip with specific information not even dreamed of at the time - came in with other specific details. This I know for an absolute fact!

I am only doing what VSP did here. Open your eyes and allow for tips and information that were dismissed to be looked at again. One other thing there was nothing indicating any security or LE involvement. The type of jobs that these men appeared to have are known to LE [FBI and Rader himself] and it had nothing to do with a music concert.

Read Rader's letter and then think of the twisted logic of this legal case in the subject.

If they were to arrest and charge the last persons with her, they could now say that the elements associated with Metal Rock bands and the elements themselves are responsible, not the last one with her.

This case is just nuts, medical Doctor allows the premises that Metal Music is the reason for her death, built upon a fall, and no reentry? Really was there a banana peel on the floor?

I will state this very carefully. The Harrington's Attorney and the verbiage will strongly lead RMC to investigate at what time did the Harrington's come to the conclusions stated in there filling pertaining to the crime in the area and the so called evil influences of a Metal Music concert.

This is very very important, the cameleon type of public view allowed by so many television interviews never reflects either of these two things. They have a son, who now must be deposed for various reasons.

1] the four years did you share concerns about the crime around the area
2] ....did you share information with Morgan Dana Harrington about safety during the months that the tickets we stuck on the refrigerator door.
3]... are or were you aware of ANY medical or emotional issues requiring medicines, even so much as cold or allergies?
4] ...what about the reports of her cell phone being disabled many times prior to this horrible night?
5]... did she call you or text you that night and would that be something she would do normally?
[6 -29]] and I will let you come to your own conclusions about how rough this may get.

It will be very very rough but now it is necessary and RMC with help from the industry will be careful not to seem to be insensitive to the young man. But it must be done. It also goes to any Venue's treatment of adults, men and women. Should an adult female be treated differently than a man?

Then the 2nd of 3 men.

If the gash was so visible, why did the witness not go and get a policeman right then. Grab her, not just look, remember he was so close to her almost in the Ladies room to expect us to believe he has an expert opinion about alcohol smells?

the 3rd man. is the male she called that was at the time ruled out as a suspect in a homicide. This certainly does not suggest he might not have other information about her frame of mind, or a fall? or where I know where she wanted to go? I can tell you this if RMC has not interviewed him, they need to do it quickly before others urge him. I would also say that man, If he were I should consult an attorney. Not that he did anything wrong at all, I do not believe he did, but with money floating around and the need for his privacy and to keep a bloogger from sharing his information he needs to be honest first and careful and keep to his rights!

I am being very careful to share what maybe uncomfortable without spelling it out due to The Hook.

But just ask legal eagle if each of these 3 interviews will be granted to RMC as a result of the amendment?


There are 4 women that I respect so much in regards to this case.

1] is Amanda, she is unwavering in her support, but also very intelligent and just so kind.
2] Is mom 3, her research and love for what I think Morgan loved are so important.
3] is Dunnah, she is no friend of mine, that she makes clear. But she has the local perspective and she is so consistent and intelligent it brings clarity to any of us. Her heart, mind and soul is not to be questioned.
4] then there is Ms Stuart, during Hawes and after - she is a source that is truly the only one that can bring past Virginia and local cases into the light. Folks, she is no fan of me either.

The point is, that many people are not bound by emotions, the rush to judgement, the - just plain darn assignation of character as displayed by so many in this case.

Bare with me, it is relevant to the article!

I too sometimes get to emotional and I will explain it now!

A woman posted on Find Morgan that I was accused of murder of my Uncle. My Uncle was my Fathers closes brother out out of 10. Hawes was aware my father passed away last year, and that I had a true hate for the way Dan Harrington reacted it to it. It was so horrible, that anyone with a cold case would just puke!

What Dan Harrington did was not only bad, but when it was reported that I had had committed suicide and that information got to my Mother he told me I deserved it! He is a very mean, out of touch man!

Of course it was another gentleman and Dan let his moderators on Findmorgan fend for themselves.The only law suite ever mentioned prior, and i mean many months before i was even involved was from a mentally ill person.

Bare with me, it is relevant to the article!

I not only spent time, money and involved several experts, I got involved with the most fantastic friend.

The result was so a war on me by he!

And, I am telling you it does have baring on this case!

The frustration of VSP was so important that they actually asked me if I had ever seen such. It lead to many contacts with a fine man, sometimes by phone, rarely by e-mail and sometimes with his team coming into my home in the Hills. Do not worry, there were no airline tickets, no lavish hotel or even expenses tax payer dollars ever spent.

I volunteered it all.

I got a tip, it was so early. DNA test had not even been forwarded to the lab. Lt. Rader is a very very fine man. It became apparent the tip I received included the facts that the person with the tip had tried unsuccessfully to give the information. The Lt. looked into and found in-fact the person was accurate that the tips were not even looked at by a true investigator.

The information later proved to be 100% accurate, or shall we say %99.9999999999999999999986.

The other information at the same time just did not fit anyone's timeline.But mine at the time!

Bare with me, it is relevant to the article!

The Harringtons not only treated me this way, I have a list of 7 other people that also have either a cold case or a more recent case. This case touched all of us, especially families with unanswered questions to their families losses, never before had many of us felt so used and abused by any two people.

It became apparent to many of us, and many have had professional counseling that these parents were either now, or have had been due to other experiences not going to grieve in anyway that he have ever experienced

I truly want the truth to be told, I believe that Morgan had the talent, desires and the calling to move into the art world. I do not believe in anyway she is to be blamed for her pursuit of living the way she wanted.

I just think that the Harringtons would have gotten or would get much more support if they just acknowledged her free spirit, instead of being ashamed of her actions. She was young, not a girl, she had talent, she was not a bad young lady. She lived to experience life, look at her bedroom, she had a wide array of musical interest.

She did choose to have good friends. They loved her so much. She struggled with life as 98 % will admit too later looking back at their late teens and early 20's. It just seems so sad, to see two people just melt!

RMC cannot make then whole, no one can but a higher power. 2 and one half years ago I printed on The Hook that maybe by the 4th of July 2012 they could foe a cruse or go to the beach and gaze back with a new look into Morgan's life and celebrate all of it, even the desire to go see art performed at JPJA. But we are soon to be a year late, sadly and it is sad, they have no peace in their heart.

In the spirit of Easter, I hope that they find peace. Peace is not found in revenge, nor indifference.

I ahve spoken to many people close to them out of concern before our falling out. I am not nor ever will be a "YES MAN". I applaud those that give them comfort, but question at what point do they tell them to move forward. Morgan would surely want them to.

They need not worry about the level of police and FBI's desire to let this case solve.
Trust God, these people involved in the case are very professional, they are not incompetent nor without resources.

I spoke to Rader so many times, funny now looking back how he made a point when talking about the mental ill person. His point was that Civil law-suites were just something he could not stand. He explained it was different rules, no consensus only a majority of jurors. Back then I thought he was speaking of the poster on

Now, well my Dad was a great Attorney in both criminal and civil suites, but I see just how wise Ret. Lt. Rader is!

I want the truth, no matter what is, lessons can be learned. That is what we need, the truth!

I doubt that RMC is responsible for Morgan Dana Harrington's death. In fact I know they are not!

I forgive Dan almost every Sunday. Strange with all I have going on, the family was in my Easter prayers. I am not evil, Music is not evil, Dan is not evil but life is not fair. Be happy for her life Dan, even it was too brief, I say to the Harrington's Mary at first saw her SON Jesus have his life taken from him and her.

Truly to have a child lose their life preceding the mother and father is one of the worst things any person can endure.

Just remember and believe, Jesus and Mary do understand, you are not alone. May peace please find its way into your hearts!

I will continue to find the truth!

The only reason I'm visiting this page again is because I accidentally left the box checked that said to notify me if new comments were posted. As if ANYONE would want to hear "Is JPJ liable"? "Are they not liable?" Who cares? That's for a jury to decide, and most likely a jury will find somebody there liable for something. And if one of their staff was an accomplice then look it up -- when you do something illegal or negligent as an employee, you're acting as an AGENT of your employer. Have any of you ever even SEEN a lawsuit? They actually put language like that in there -- acting as an AGENT of blah blah company, etc.

Here's what we should REALLY talk about, or try to get someone to remember -- something the VSP and FBI have known for years but you haven't... How did she get that gash? Here's something that I think was way too similar in method.

A black man at a truck stop, hours after the abduction, smacked into me so hard that it stung. Now I'm a heavy woman, so it just made me angry enough to follow him around and get his license tag number. But I didn't report him at the time because I've had other experiences, for example in DC, where a man hit me so hard that he left a gash in my shoulder, and the cops there told me there was nothing they could do because it could have been accidental. The black man at the truck stop (near the NC border) did try to make it look accidental, but then he tried to do it again minutes later.

When I looked out at his car at the gas pumps, he had some white/tan guys in his back seat, one who I know is related to the big rape video ring in the Reading-Harrisburg area of Pennsylvania. I've long suspected that he's the kingpin or one of them -- the person who goes around corrupting locals to create their own rape video rings. That car was from New Jersey, which convinced me even more that it was the same guy, since he uses New Jersey tags most of the time, and about 20 years ago told me that he was from New York. The New Jersey guys split after they saw me, and the black man drove away with a small, motionless person hidden under a black man's overcoat in the front seat.

VSP & FBI have had his full license tag for years, and the FBI has had numerous reports including license tags on the man in his back seat since at least 2001. A Federal agent once looked up the New Jersey tag he was using to stalk women in the year 2000, and it traced back to some government agency with the word "environment" in the title. It wasn't EPA or Fish & Wildlife, though -- could have been state or military. A rapist who owned a body shop in Orwigsburg, PA once told me that the man said he was a "biologist," but who can trust what a gang-rapist/rape video perp says? The Feds won't tell me who he is, or why they haven't arrested him after all these years.

I really think that the P.I. in Florida is right about the serial killer theory, because of the appearance of that longtime stalker/suspected rapist in the back seat. I could tell you dozens of things about him that'd boil your blood, but the police and FBI have everything I know on him, and what he did that night is bad enough. I believe that he was an accomplice in the Harrington murder, if not the mastermind. And a few days later, I saw him again with trash bags packed all around him in the front seat of a pickup truck with VIRGINIA tags. I think he was a part of their "evidence disposal team," too. That was probably on the Wednesday following the abduction -- a few days after the fact, whenever it was. Did any of you see a sight like that in the area? The cops might want to know where you saw them, and what they were doing.

Even if it wasn't Morgan Harrington's body under that coat, the fact that he was in Virginia that night, within distance of the abduction within the timeframe, makes me believe he was involved. And if any of you had ever lived in the Reading/Harrisburg area, you'd know how bad they are. You can sit at a restaurant near Fort Indiantown Gap (the one that the PA bounty hunter says has training that occurs along the timelines of the abductions/possible murders) and watch them eye the young boys that parents bring out to breakfast while they talk about rape suspects and intimidating victims. And go to other restaurants in Harrisburg and elsewhere, and hear restaurant workers talk about the rape videos. I never understood those stories in the bible where God destroyed an entire community because they were all "evil," until I lived in that area. It seems as though half the community is in on it. And sitting around talking about civil lawsuits isn't going to keep trash like that out of your community.

So, anyone else want to dig through your e-mail and see if you noticed anything suspicious? Check your outbox. You might have told one of your friends about something you noticed or someone you talked to who was a little off. Even if it was miles away from C-ville, you might have another gem in there. But speculating on a lawsuit -- let the lawyers worry about that. They're getting paid for that.

Remember that lady who said she saw Morgan Harrington with three guys, but nobody could back her up? It's possible that when the rape video guy and his friends in the backseat split, that they circled back to pick up another woman with the same body type. There are all sorts of possibilities on how different sightings fit. What's your theory? Put your brain to better use than thinking about monetary damages...

Oh, and here's something else that someone might remember -- when the black man came into the truck stop, he was wearing a plain blue uniform, basically a blue shirt and dark pants. No company logo, or I would have complained to that company about him. He did have a red and white name patch on it, though. (Keep in mind that his tags were from New Jersey -- so if he was working in the area, which I doubt, he was an out of state worker.)

Who might have been wearing a uniform like that in or around the concert? I wasn't there. You'll have to be the memory for me. Remember, I was staying near the North Carolina border and the only reason I was at the truck stop so long was that the Wifi at my hotel wasn't working. (I actually suspect that God put me there because I'd recognize the interstate stalking /serial rape suspect in the back seat.)

And then while he was there, the man took FOREVER in the men's room changing his clothes, Like, longer than a woman doing her make-up. He came out in dress pants and a nice shirt, I think tan pants and a cream-colored shirt with tan and even dark purple stripes at varied intervals. The new clothes looked brand new, and he wouldn't have been that bad-looking man if it weren't for his violent and disgusting personality.

Between George, m sutton and "Worse than you know" I don't know who is more ridiculous.

Sutton by far, not even close.

DearLord, with this story it's been a race to the bottom from the get-go."Worse than you know" is giving it all she has, but sutton wins based on overall points scored.

I can only image what the police have had to go through since they have to deal civilly with whatever loonies contact them and they probably had to follow up on way too many ridiculous tips even if just to be sure they can dismiss them. No doubt they've even had to investigate a few of the most obsessive posters as potential suspects. I'm sure Courtney Stuart knows their pain. I hope she writes a book about the experience if and when it's all over.

Things like porn videos and meth aren't big here, are they? It sounds like Morgan was X-ing from her behavior, and from the way the friends were pissed at her and let her go. But it's a stretch to think she was kidnapped by a porn video guy. Dunno. This has been one big nutty story. It will probably all turn out to be something pretty simple, and the guy she went off with (or who took her) will turn out to be a big nobody. No conspiracies. Morgan will be remembered as the pretty college girl who got hammered and left her friends, walked off from the arena, hitchhiked with the wrong guy, and ended up dead. A scary lesson for all our children.

The complaints regarding song lyrics have merit and that avenue needs pursued .Security failure yes but also strangely missing is the Boot failure . You know the boots that are ok for going to bed but difficult to walk in . The FMBoots can be blamed for her fall which cut her chin and caused the concussion . The injury prompted her to leave the arena to catch some fresh air .The concussion hampered her thinking process resulting in the failure to call her parents when she was vulnerable due to injury. Trying to walk in unwalkable FMBoots in the street and parking lot with a concussion caused by the boots made her a target for dangerous preditors . Unfortunately it is perhaps too late to sue the boot company or the store that sold them but it is not too late to add it to the present suit . Why did the JPJ arena permit patrons to enter wearing unsuitable footwear . Clearly from the information in this case it is too dangerous to wear FMBoots or FMShoes inside this building due to the seating ,steps and conjestion .

I'm sure that most of the posts by people "blaming the victim" are from the predators themselves. Everyone else might want to get off the monetary damages kick and worry about ridding the community of these predators.

For those of you who seem to read nothing BUT the Hook, I'll cover the theories I referred to FOR you. (For all the Morgan Harrington fans here, I thought you already knew.) You can google it if you want, and see the picture board of victims for yourselves.

Fact is, the P.I. from Sarasota has been on CNN with his theory, and he's put together a photo board of the women abducted who he thinks were all abducted by the same person(s). They look similar, and if he's right, the guy went on a spree in 2011 for an unknown reason. The only woman in that group of abductees who was ever found was Morgan Harrington, so she's all that the FBI has to go on if they believe the serial killer angle, which personally I think they've started to do, based on some things I've seen going on lately. Also based on things I won't cover here, I'm pretty sure they know the identity of everyone in that car, even the two men in the back seat who I didn't recognize.

The other theory I mentioned was from a bounty hunter in Pennsylvania who says that he recognized the suspect in the sketch, and that he's a member of an Army Reserves unit based in Fort Indiantown Gap that trains in Charlottesville, and near most of the other women on the "disappeared" list circulated by the Florida P.I.

I was one of the eye witnesses to the men on the North Carolina border -- which of course brings up the question of where they dump the bodies. If they were going in that direction and the hidden person wasn't moving at all had already passed, is it in North Carolina? Were they originally going to put the body in North Carolina? I think the sighting the following week was because they moved the remains after the story hit the TV. Suddenly they realized that she was "too hot to handle," and they couldn't leave her in their normal area. Also they were on a main road that goes to Fort Bragg, another place mentioned as a training site for the same Army unit. Were they going to one of their friends' houses near there? Or do they know of a special place on base that nobody would ever check?

I already knew about the rape video ring because I've lived in the Reading-Harrisburg area of Pennsylvania. In fact I'd already mentioned that ring to the VSP and FBI because I knew that the man I saw on the night of Harrington's abduction was a key member, if not the ringleader, and he's an established sexual predator with a long history. He's exactly the type of person who would eventually become a serial killer, and become violent enough to fracture bones as was seen by the Harringtons when their daughter's bones were returned to them. I just didn't know he was killing girls until I found out the significance of his appearance in Virginia that night. I knew he was dangerous, but didn't have previous evidence that he was involved in murders, at least not until 2009.

The bounty hunter in PA was the one who linked the disappearance of all of those women to the Fort Indiantown Gap area in PA. That was his idea, not mine, and it fits with what I already know AND saw on the very night of the Harrington abduction, and with what the Sarasota P.I. has researched and posted about the serial killer case.

For those who think it's GOOD to have a serial killer trolling your area and abducting your women, keep posting junk on how it's all the victims' fault. For the decent people in your area, maybe you should be talking to your friends and cousins in North Carolina and south of Charlottesville, to see if they know where the girls may have been taken. I'm sure somebody knows someone who's seen something, whether they realize the significance of what they've seen yet or not.

For those who were at the concert, I'll give you more of a clothing description than the black man in the plain blue uniform. The large bald-shaved tan man who was pumping gas for him had a flashy white sweatshirt with silver line art on it. Did anyone see someone like that with a woman who looked like Morgan Harrington? Maybe you should call the police if you did.

That's the thing about keeping quiet -- there are pros and cons. On one hand, I can understand that the police don't want one witness' story influencing the next witness. People might make assumptions and skew their stories toward the norm, and miss important details that could provide key information. On the other hand, if you don't give people a taste of important details, they don't know how significant something they saw might have been. They may think that because they didn't see Morgan Harrington, that they don't have anything useful to offer. But if they know enough about what other people saw, they might be able to give another location on the same car, or an ID on one of the persons, or even a possible locaiton that police can check for other victims. They may already be suspicious of a local predator, and when they realize who they saw him with back in 2009... magic could happen.

I think the case has gone unsolved for too long -- and so I'm OK with putting some details that I know out there. The police and FBI haven't told me to keep quiet and so I can do that for you. It might help someone realize that what they saw was key information. Maybe it'll even lead to the other girls, I hope. Again, check your e-mail outbox for mid-October 2009. Even the week following the abduction, they may have circled back to dump the body in the farmer's field. You could have seen something important, like the guy with the trash bags or something even more incriminating.

Another detail for folks who don't seem to read much, other than The Hook... That rape video ring in Central PA is so well-known that hospital workers know all about it, because they're used to hearing about it from women doing rape kits and police. It's so hard to capture ringleaders that it's ILLEGAL to even WATCH a video -- they had to pass laws like that because it's the only way to catch them. Everyone claims that it's someone else's video, and they're very good at getting their stories straight, like they're all reading from the same script to avoid self-incrimination.

Virginia probably has similar laws for the same reasons. A few years ago, there was a case that made national news where somebody supposedly tried to bring someone into a rape video ring out in Nevada I think, and he claimed that he'd just found the video under boards in the desert. I don't remember if he was convicted, but there's actually a distant affiliation between the rape video ring in Pennsylvania and other suspects from Las Vegas. This could be yet more organized crime coming out of Las Vegas - they could be reporting to the Mafia for all I know. Even New Jersey and Pennsylvania are states with a past history of powerful organized crime rings.

One more detail: I said that the large bald-shaved man was in a white sweatshirt, and I meant a white hooded sweatshirt JACKET. Too much typing for one evening, but maybe it'll help in some way.

Hooray! Hearing scheduled for April 18. This should be good. I hope the Hook will cover it and publish the transcripts.

Worse than you Know, maybe the guy, or guys, who picked up Morgan weren't even at the concert, but happened to be driving by the busy streets and parking lots while people were heading in to the arena. Morgan left the concert before Metallica even came on stage, so may have walked right into them. Messed up and hitch hiking.

You believe you saw them where? At the border down 29 South? I imagine the police have followed up on all the leads that have come in, yours included.

"Everyone else might want to get off the monetary damages kick and worry about ridding the community of these predators.

Sounds like good advice for some of the indivudals here spouting conspiracy theories and trying to rewrite history.

LOL, we're not on a monetary damages kick. The Harringtons are.

Frank -- some boots are made for walking.

The first Slutwalk happened two years ago yesterday in Toronto , Canada . The trend has spread throughout the world .Most participants in subsequent rallies ,even while trying to dress in a provocative fashion ,wear running shoes or other sensible footwear . There are many wearing CM FM Boots also but these marches are usually on paved level streets . Attempting to navigate the difficult narrow steps and slippery surface in a packed arena such as JPJ in Stiletto CM FM Boots is very unsafe and dangerous . The security company was at fault by admitting her while dressed in an unsafe manner . Had they not negligently admitted her while wearing CM FM Boots this tragedy would not have happened.

"Had they not negligently admitted her while wearing CM FM Boots this tragedy would not have happened."

Seriously? Nah, can't be serious. Almost had me, though.

OK, well, serves me right for posting without reading all the prior posts. Frank is being serious. But Frank, as someone who knows the history of slutwalks and presumably supports the underlying ideology, think: if JPJ started refusing admission to women on the basis of their clothing choices, how do you think the slutwalk-positive community would feel about that?

Good point Bobby . Regardless of what the SWM --- SlutWalk Movement might feel , banning the unsafe CM FM Boots within JPJ would have prevented the fall and subsequent concussion . People don't usually fall from a sitting position so she would have fallen while attempting to stand or walk in unsatable mini stilts/stilettos . If the suit doesn't hang the boot safety issue blame on the security firm then the security firm can conversely use it in their defense . Like , how were they to know if she was unsteady on her feet from a concussion or simply having difficulty walking in the unsafe footwear ?

@ Frank Speaker April 4th, 2013 | 3:37pm

Frank it is on record that her mother helped her pick out the boots and others. In your professorial opinion is this contributory negligence?

Another question Frank, if you would be so kind, should the railroad post warning on the bridge warning people with highlighted florescent diagonal signs with a logo about crossing their bridge in such heels? I think maybe they sued the wrong entity with big time cash.

Frank can they amend the lawsuit to add the railroad now due to not having crossing signals for boot wearers?

Finally Frank, if she did as you suggest in years past discard the boots and the t-shirt, and they ended up in the dumpster for innocent dumpster divers, could the estate be sued for other injuries that the Dumpster divers may have had?

Frank, can you find the manufacture of the Boot maker, would you please file a suit and ask for such information in the discovery phase, then with suggestions from caring individuals could you amend the suit as we, ops you see fit?

Frank I am so glad that BOC did not follow through with their threat against you!

M.S. the situtions you are concerned about are mostly hypothetical and ,therefore, irrelevant to the suit . You are veering way off the situation that actually caused the actual injury . Patrons would not be aware of what would be safe or unsafe to wear inside JPJ as many would have been there for the first time . The security company on the other hand would be required to be aware if mini stilt steel stilettos were a safety hazard within that particular building . They clearly were unsafe but no measures were taken by RMC/JPJA to ban them or at minimum post a cautionary notice .

Frank: You've sketched out an argument that JPJ could be held accountable for the fall itself and the resulting injuries (if that's in fact what happened, and it's not unreasonable to infer that it did). But IMO it would not be reasonably foreseeable that an injury resulting from the fall would lead to an abduction and murder, so it wouldn't legally be the proximate cause of Morgan's death. Even plaintiff's counsel doesn't appear to be pursuing that theory.