Rape in Virginia - Research Paper Example

Case Analysis: Rape in Virginia. Case Analysis: Rape in Virginia. Summary In October 2009, a visiting father had completed having dinner with his daughter and were returning to his car from a Chartoville restaurant. The father was returning his daughter to her dormitory at about 9.20pm, as they returned they had to pass by Paul John Arena, where there was a major event occurring. Heavy metal group Metallica had just finished their performance, and fans had gathered in the arena. This meant that the parking lots were occupied and, Copeley road was almost devoid of any pedestrians. As the father and daughter approached Ivy road, their ordinary journey took them past an odd sight. There was a young woman, who was dressed in black attire and had long blond hair; she stood on the railroad bridge extending her thumb gesturing for a ride. The unfortunate fact was that this was the last moment the father and daughter saw Morgan Dana Harrington alive. (Siegel, 2011) It is now one year since the remains of the Virginia education tech student (who was 20 years of age upon her death) was discovered. With no suspects identified, the police have made enquiries to the public hoping that there might individuals who may assist with the investigation. The questions still remain unanswered as to how Morgan’s body was discovered in a cow pasture 10 miles from where she was last seen, and whether there is a stalker still roaming the streets of Charlottesville and Albemarle county. Case Analysis While retracing the steps of Morgan, the Virginia State Police Special Agent Dino Cappuzzo disclosed the story of the daughter and father, who allowed the police to determine the time that Morgan was possibly abducted. The father stated that, on his way back from dropping his daughter at the dormitory, he stopped at the convenience store on Ivy Road, which was at 9.30 pm based on time on his receipt. On his return to the bridge after 7-11 minutes, Morgan was gone. Two other witnesses confirmed that they had seen a blond woman hitchhiking in the same area. Cappuzzo stated that the witnesses’ stories had been completely vetted by the police. However, none was considered suspects. The descriptions provided by the witnesses were new information released to public on the 25th of January 2011, which was a day prior to the anniversary of the discovery of the body. It was the first piece of information that was obtained by the police department since last summer, when police confirmed the DNA obtained from the Harrington case is related or linked to a rape case that took place in 2005, in Fairfax. The victim in that case survived her ordeal, which was due to her assailant being startled by a passerby. Her description of her assailant was an average sized African American male, aged between 25 and 35. It is the only information that can describe the perpetrator, and it has been stored in the State DNA databank. However, his identity remains anonymous. Based on the eyewitness statements, they are considered unreliable, and the police are unwilling to confirm the individual’s race, as the information is inconclusive. The police spokesperson Corinne Geller stated that the police investigators had considered various tests, which included the archaic DNA test, which could be used in increasing the accuracy of the description of the perpetrator (Hoereck, 2004). The same test was utilized in several rapist investigations in the 1990s. During the period, there was a high suspect number that was of the black race, which prompted suspicions of racism, eventually proving it was unable to catch the perpetrator. Another DNA tests being supported by the Harrington family is the DNA search. It can be used in reducing the circle of possible suspects by searching close relatives of the unknown suspect. The search can only be effective if the assailant has a close relative, which means a parent, sibling or a child, convicted of a felony (Siegel, 2011). The forensic Science of the Virginia police department has obtained a process that would serve to validate any similar DNA searching software. Even though this may be the case, Geller states that the investigators will proceed with using selective and cautious measures with the DNA testing, because of the limitations of the evidence provided for analysis. The DNA is destroyed during testing, making it impossible to retest the available DNA. Details of the Case Cappuzzo stated that the witnesses of the bridge sightings claim that Morgan was not carrying a purse. This could be due to the possibility that her purse may have been black, with backpack straps. Therefore, if she had it, it is likely that the witnesses did not see the purse as she was wearing a black T-shirt. Another possibility was that her purse may have been found by a member of the lacrosse team on Sunday October 18th (Siegel, 2011). It was located near a fence and turned it into the U-hall in the lost-and-found department. A cell phone and umbrella were items discovered at the fence along with the purse. Morgan’s parents (Gil and Dan) are not convinced at the notion that her daughter would drop her purse haphazardly, and began hitchhiking. They believe that is irregular of the usual behavior displayed by their daughter. They describe her as an individual who displayed good sense. However, several descriptions of Morgan on the fatal suggest that she was not her normal, as though she was in a different state of mind. (Hoereck, 2004) Cappuzzo confirmed that Morgan had consumed some alcohol on the night; however, he was unable to comment on the volume of alcohol that she had consumed. He refused to comment on whether she consumed other substances on the night. He noted there were no indications Morgan was drugged or incapacitated by an individual with malicious intent. Some few weeks after the discovery of Morgan’s body several reports suggested that she displayed cases of erratic behavior. Cappuzzo revealed that he was informed that Morgan left her friends, so she could use the ladies room at some point shortly after 8pm, when the act Lamb of God was on stage. While alone in the toilet, Morgan fell down and injured her chin (Cliard, 2008). Several individuals offered assistance to tend to her injury according to witness reports. A woman claimed that Morgan used a paper towel to tend to her chin, which had a minor injury. Hence, she refused any assistance. The Arena holds a no re-entry, and Cappuzzo scrutinized the point at which Morgan left the Arena. There are some suspicions that she was lured outside the arena, and a ticket taker revealed that they had warned Morgan of the no re-entry policy as she exited the Arena. The ticket taker said that Morgan acknowledged the warning and continued to leave the Arena. At some point, she was seen emptying the content in her purse to find her Digital camera, which has still not been recovered. Morgan tried to re-enter the Arena, and the ticket taker asked her for her ticket. She claimed that it was in pieces, in her purse. The ticket taker stopped her from emptying her purse again, and told her to purchase another ticket in order to re-enter the Arena. Morgan left the Arena but remained in the vicinity for 10-15 minutes, interacting with other individuals at the concert. (Siegel, 2011) Unusual Behavior Based on some witness reports, a man claimed that he heard shouting at the entrance of the Arena, and a young woman that fit Morgan’s description approached him. She asked him to accompany her in an aggressive manner. He declined and walked away. As a result, she retaliated by cursing at him and kicking him. He went in to mock her kick and informed his girlfriend of the encounter through a telephone call. Cappuzzo said the man was cleared as a suspect. He stated that she found some other men to socialize. Reports claimed that the men were identified as the men’s basketball team. They were reported to have left the Arena at about 9pm (Hoereck, 2004). They left in two groups one through the side door and the other through the main entrance. Morgan followed the group through the side door where the continued into the parking lots located on the west side of the U-Hall. It is where the athletes park whenever the Arena is busy or is holding an event. The athletes informed the police that Morgan was not steady and wobbly. Cappuzzo went on to state that she struggled to support herself and used vehicles as she walked through the parking lot. Between the U-Hall and the RV lot, Morgan dropped her phone, losing the back casing and the battery, which has not been recovered. Ten days after her disappearance, Police used bloodhounds to trace Morgan’s steps. Morgan had requested a ride to a location that Cappuzzo did not reveal. However, the students declined. The 14 men that saw Morgan at the parking lot were interviewed, and they claimed that they had another event to attend on the night. (Cuklanz, 1996) After the students had departed, Morgan walked along the fence that separates the parking lot and the UVA track. The bloodhounds followed her scent up until the portable toilets at the back of the parking lot. Two witnesses stated that they noticed her in the area, and she curtsied towards them but did not flag them for transport. The behavior seemed to pose many questions, such as why Morgan did not use her car. Which was located in the parking lot between Emmett Street and U-Hall? Why was she alone on at night, which was rainy? It was revealed that one of the three friends that was the designated driver was holding the keys. As Metallica were about to perform, Morgan’s friends tried to call her (at about 8.45 pm) to give directions on how to re-enter the arena. Her friends directed to enter through the smoking area, which they believed could be accessed through the outside of the arena, but the area was protected by a concrete wall. Morgan claimed that she would get a ride. There was a lack of surveillance video to trace and assess Morgan’s movements in the Arena. However, it was stated that the cameras were focused on the inside of the Arena. Problems with Evidence retrieval There were several problems with tracing Morgan’s scent due to the rain and the windy conditions in the area after the night Morgan disappeared. Her trace ended at the portable toilets until her body was discovered on Anchorage farm on 26th January 2010. Cappuzzo claimed that Morgan’s rapist and the killer, is from the community as the evidence suggested that the geographical analysis of the incidence demonstrated that the individual responsible is in the area and is still at large. (Cuklanz, 1996) Conclusion The case is still on-going and understanding the possible killer is proving to be difficult based on the problems of profile identifications and nobody can inform the police of the events that occurred after the father had taken his daughter back to her dormitory. The police have several gaps top fill elating to how Morgan managed to end up on a farm, which are several miles from her last seen location. It is evident that alcohol and other potential harmful substances may have contributed to her disappearance and hence the reason for her erratic behavior on the night of her disappearance. Based on the reports by witnesses, she did not seem to behave normally, which is a cause for concern, as it may be the reason why she was an easy target for a rapist, given her condition. The case is ongoing, and one can only hope the tragic case will have a conclusive end, and justice will be served. References Cliard, M. B. (2008). Sociology of Deviant Behavior. New York: Wadsworth. Cuklanz, L. M. (1996). Rape on Trial: how the mass media construct legal reforms, California: Prentice Hall. Hoereck,T. (2003). Public rape: representing violation in fiction and film. New York, NY: Routledge. Siegel, L. J. (2011). Criminology. New York, NY. Wadsworth. Read More