TNT has an issued an apology for Tracy Morgan’s crude remark about Sarah Palin, E! News reports. During a live broadcast of Inside the NBA, Charles Barkley and Tracy were discussing who is hotter: Tina Fey or Sarah Palin (my vote’s for Tina). Charles said, ”Sarah Palin’s good looking, isn’t she?”

To which Tracy responded: ”Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin—she’s good masturbation material.”

The cable network issued the following statement: “It’s unfortunate Mr. Morgan showed a lack of judgment on our air with his inappropriate comments.” Tracy did not comment any further on the matter.

Was Tracy’s remark going too far – or are people being oversensitive? Here’s why I’m conflicted: I think it’s absolutely absurd to treat female politicians as sex objects. As a governor or Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin deserves to be treated like any other man in her position, whether or not you agree with her politics. You might remember Sarah’s leggy Newsweek Magazine cover, which was ridiculous and offensive. You didn’t see John McCain being photographed like that!

But now, Sarah has chosen a reality career over being governor – and thus is on the same level as the Kardashian sisters. Would it have been okay for Tracy to make the same remark about Kim Kardashian? That’s a tougher call, isn’t it?

The one thing I don’t really get is what any of this had to do with basketball…

TNT has an issued an apology for Tracy Morgan’s crude remark about Sarah Palin, E! News reports. During a live broadcast of Inside the NBA, Charles Barkley and Tracy were discussing who is hotter: Tina Fey or Sarah Palin (my vote’s for Tina). Charles said, ”Sarah Palin’s good looking, isn’t she?”

To which Tracy responded: ”Let me tell you something about Sarah Palin—she’s good masturbation material.”

The cable network issued the following statement: “It’s unfortunate Mr. Morgan showed a lack of judgment on our air with his inappropriate comments.” Tracy did not comment any further on the matter.

Was Tracy’s remark going too far – or are people being oversensitive? Here’s why I’m conflicted: I think it’s absolutely absurd to treat female politicians as sex objects. As a governor or Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin deserves to be treated like any other man in her position, whether or not you agree with her politics. You might remember Sarah’s leggy Newsweek Magazine cover, which was ridiculous and offensive. You didn’t see John McCain being photographed like that!

But now, Sarah has chosen a reality career over being governor – and thus is on the same level as the Kardashian sisters. Would it have been okay for Tracy to make the same remark about Kim Kardashian? That’s a tougher call, isn’t it?

The one thing I don’t really get is what any of this had to do with basketball…

Morgan Freeman died on Thursday -- not in real life, but according to a Twitter hoax that duped countless users.

Though the actor is alive and well, a rumor rocketed across the internet on Thursday that CNN had reported his death.

"RT @CNN: Breaking News: actor Morgan Freeman has passed away in his Burbank home," many Twitter users posted on Thursday evening.

On Twitter, a post starting with the letters RT indicates that a user is simply re-tweeting what another user has said.

Confusion continued to spread as Twitter users "re-tweeted" or re-posted the post purportedly from CNN.

The post was re-tweeted by many other media outlets, including LiveNewsWire and ESPN's Bruce Feldman, as well as Borders headquarters.

This epidemic of re-tweets caused many to believe that CNN had posted the news, and others were simply passing it on.

But CNN's Twitter account did not display the original post, leading users to wonder whether it had been deleted as a retraction, or was potentially hacked.

"Now I'm curious if CNN even tweeted a statement about Morgan Freeman, or if someone simply hoaxed the tweet with a 'RT @CNN,'" one user wrote.

CNN itself cleared up the rumors on Thursday evening with a post to its official Twitter page.

"CNN did not report Morgan Freeman death," the network stated.

"Rumor is false. CNN will aggressively investigate this hoax."

Morgan Freeman died on Thursday -- not in real life, but according to a Twitter hoax that duped countless users.

Though the actor is alive and well, a rumor rocketed across the internet on Thursday that CNN had reported his death.

"RT @CNN: Breaking News: actor Morgan Freeman has passed away in his Burbank home," many Twitter users posted on Thursday evening.

On Twitter, a post starting with the letters RT indicates that a user is simply re-tweeting what another user has said.

Confusion continued to spread as Twitter users "re-tweeted" or re-posted the post purportedly from CNN.

The post was re-tweeted by many other media outlets, including LiveNewsWire and ESPN's Bruce Feldman, as well as Borders headquarters.

This epidemic of re-tweets caused many to believe that CNN had posted the news, and others were simply passing it on.

But CNN's Twitter account did not display the original post, leading users to wonder whether it had been deleted as a retraction, or was potentially hacked.

"Now I'm curious if CNN even tweeted a statement about Morgan Freeman, or if someone simply hoaxed the tweet with a 'RT @CNN,'" one user wrote.

CNN itself cleared up the rumors on Thursday evening with a post to its official Twitter page.

"CNN did not report Morgan Freeman death," the network stated.

"Rumor is false. CNN will aggressively investigate this hoax."

Over the past year, as CNN has revamped its primetime lineup in an attempt to turn around its sinking ratings, the network’s fierce insistence that it would remain non-partisan has been widely regarded as a nobly doomed journey down the journalistic high road.

But the announcement Wednesday that Piers Morgan would be taking over for Larry King marks a new approach for CNN in its competition with MSNBC and Fox: trying the non-partisan low road, in a populist and tabloid-flavored appeal to a broader audience than normally tunes in for cable primetime.
Morgan, a longtime British tabloid editor whose top video on YouTube shows him interviewing Paris Hilton in bed, defended CNN's "ethos of nonpartisanship" in a call to journalists Wednesday, and was not shy about lashing out at his new primetime competitors’ lack of it.

“I have a lot of opinions about politics, religion, everything,” he said. “Do I want to shove that down my viewers throats? No. There are enough people doing that at 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock. I find it a bit self-indulgent.”

Instead, Morgan plans to bring the kind of fearless - and shameless - interviewing style that has made his long-form interview show in the U.K., “Piers Morgan Life Stories,” the country’s top-rated interview show. (In his most famous interview, with then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he asked: “It was the era of free love. How free was your love?”)

In this way, he is very much continuing King’s legacy, albeit with a reputation for more curveballs than softballs.

But as a Brit whose time in the U.S. has been mostly spent appearing on the reality show “America’s Got Talent,” it remains to be seen whether he will be able to attract the political guests and make the kind of news that King did.

“He has charmed British audiences, and he’s charmed network audiences,” said Tammy Haddad, the founding executive producer for “Larry King Live.” “The question is, will he be able to win over cable news audiences?”

One thing that will help is timing. King’s farewell show will be December 16th, and Morgan will start his yet-to-be-named show in January, steering him clear of the midterm elections and giving him plenty of prep time.

“The mere fact that they are waiting until January means they are working on giving him a good launch,” Haddad said. “That’s the time when people’s eyes go back to the other coast, toward the Oscars, and away from Washington.”

But CNN is also clearly banking on Morgan’s ability to attract audiences who could care less about Washington and politics. Rumors of Morgan’s getting the job swirled for three months in part because CNN and NBC had to hammer out a deal to share Morgan, who draws top summer ratings as a reality show judge.

Morgan’s network following could prove to be a boon for his new cable bosses, and he vowed Wednesday to go after new audiences that don’t even watch television.
“I’ve not joined to come in second, third or fourth,” he said. “I like to come in first. However long that takes, that’s the game plan.”

A large part of his success will depend on the fate of his lead-in, the newly named “Parker Spitzer” show at 8 p.m., which debuts in October. Campbell Brown, who previously held the slot, stepped down earlier this year, saying she just could not compete in the ratings game.

Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset Listen
But while Morgan’s other job might help CNN, his baggage from his previous jobs might not.

Throughout his career as a British tabloid editor he courted controversy and racked up some notable enemies. In 2002, Cherie Blair, wife of another former prime minister, called him "a man with no moral compass." (Morgan told journalists Wednesday that she’d be on a list of banned guests, along with Heather Mills McCartney.)

As editor of The Daily Mirror, Morgan was found to have bought shares in a technology company shortly before the company was tipped by his paper's financial columnists. While the writers had to leave the Mirror, Morgan stayed on.

In 2004, under his editorship, the Mirror printed photographs depicting British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner. Morgan was fired when it came out that the photos were a hoax - but Morgan maintains to this day that he never believed them to be forged, and still does not know of their source.

More ominous perhaps for his upcoming role, is his hotheaded history with talk shows.

British broadcaster Ian Hislop and presenter Clive Anderson both, while on air, charged Morgan with having photographers and reporters follow and spy on them. Morgan's response? He told Anderson that the photographers would be better hidden next time, and, referring to Hislop, asked the live audience:"Does anyone actually like him?"

In 2004, British TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson publicly punched Morgan three times at the British Press Awards for the Mirror's prying into his private life.

Last year Morgan even told The Guardian newspaper, "I like waging feuds."

But even those who consider him a “tabloid scumbag,” as one profiler in the UK’s Observer did in 2008, still find him irresistible.
“There is absolutely no good reason on this planet to like Piers Morgan,” the Observer’s Polly Vernon wrote. “His crimes are manifold. He's a show-off and a hypocrite and he's obsessed by celebrity and the benefits it can bring him. He thinks the whole of Fleet Street is jealous of him, because he's renounced the legitimacy of journalism for the bright lights and easy cash of populist telly.

“Problem is, I do. Morgan's entirely likeable. He is arrogant, he is pompous, he is pleased with himself; but he also knows how absurd his life is, how quickly and completely this could evaporate.”

Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset Listen
Whether American cable audiences will have the same response is a matter of critical importance to CNN. Morgan’s placement marks the last big move in CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein’s revamping of the network’s primetime lineup, and Klein’s fortunes will be made or broken on Morgan’s performance.

Klein, who on Wednesday called the choice of Morgan “the most natural thing in the world,” brushed off questions about what was at stake for him or the network.

“The stakes are for the audiences, which deserve hard hitting, tough questioning and having officials held accountable. And that’s what we are focused on doing.”

One former CNN correspondent who didn’t want to be named was dismayed by the choice.

“It’s disappointing to see CNN slide further into the dubious business of tabloid journalism. CNN still has serious journalists doing first-rate reporting, like Candy Crowley for instance, but an increasing percentage of its air time is taken up by show hosts who are interested in provoking outrage, than providing context.”

But Frank Sesno, the former CNN correspondent who filled in for King in the 1990s, thinks Morgan might work.

“I think CNN needs a new voice in primetime. He’s going to be a new voice, and literally, with a new accent. He’s had a very interesting and unconventional background for this kind of thing that just may give a perspective and an edit and approach that’s different. And what CNN has to do it if it’s going to rejuvenate and reinvent itself, is it has to be true to its brand while being imaginative and creative enough to be different.”

Morgan said his interview wish list would start with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the organizer behind the mosque and community center near ground zero (who CNN already landed on Wednesday), and go on to include Mel Gibson, President Barack Obama and Lindsay Lohan.

Displaying his taste for mischief, he quipped that he’s “still planning a Glenn Beck-style rally in Central Park next summer and that he was “going for a million people to show up,” though he wasn't quite sure yet what it would be about.

Over the past year, as CNN has revamped its primetime lineup in an attempt to turn around its sinking ratings, the network’s fierce insistence that it would remain non-partisan has been widely regarded as a nobly doomed journey down the journalistic high road.

But the announcement Wednesday that Piers Morgan would be taking over for Larry King marks a new approach for CNN in its competition with MSNBC and Fox: trying the non-partisan low road, in a populist and tabloid-flavored appeal to a broader audience than normally tunes in for cable primetime.
Morgan, a longtime British tabloid editor whose top video on YouTube shows him interviewing Paris Hilton in bed, defended CNN's "ethos of nonpartisanship" in a call to journalists Wednesday, and was not shy about lashing out at his new primetime competitors’ lack of it.

“I have a lot of opinions about politics, religion, everything,” he said. “Do I want to shove that down my viewers throats? No. There are enough people doing that at 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock. I find it a bit self-indulgent.”

Instead, Morgan plans to bring the kind of fearless - and shameless - interviewing style that has made his long-form interview show in the U.K., “Piers Morgan Life Stories,” the country’s top-rated interview show. (In his most famous interview, with then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, he asked: “It was the era of free love. How free was your love?”)

In this way, he is very much continuing King’s legacy, albeit with a reputation for more curveballs than softballs.

But as a Brit whose time in the U.S. has been mostly spent appearing on the reality show “America’s Got Talent,” it remains to be seen whether he will be able to attract the political guests and make the kind of news that King did.

“He has charmed British audiences, and he’s charmed network audiences,” said Tammy Haddad, the founding executive producer for “Larry King Live.” “The question is, will he be able to win over cable news audiences?”

One thing that will help is timing. King’s farewell show will be December 16th, and Morgan will start his yet-to-be-named show in January, steering him clear of the midterm elections and giving him plenty of prep time.

“The mere fact that they are waiting until January means they are working on giving him a good launch,” Haddad said. “That’s the time when people’s eyes go back to the other coast, toward the Oscars, and away from Washington.”

But CNN is also clearly banking on Morgan’s ability to attract audiences who could care less about Washington and politics. Rumors of Morgan’s getting the job swirled for three months in part because CNN and NBC had to hammer out a deal to share Morgan, who draws top summer ratings as a reality show judge.

Morgan’s network following could prove to be a boon for his new cable bosses, and he vowed Wednesday to go after new audiences that don’t even watch television.
“I’ve not joined to come in second, third or fourth,” he said. “I like to come in first. However long that takes, that’s the game plan.”

A large part of his success will depend on the fate of his lead-in, the newly named “Parker Spitzer” show at 8 p.m., which debuts in October. Campbell Brown, who previously held the slot, stepped down earlier this year, saying she just could not compete in the ratings game.

Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset Listen
But while Morgan’s other job might help CNN, his baggage from his previous jobs might not.

Throughout his career as a British tabloid editor he courted controversy and racked up some notable enemies. In 2002, Cherie Blair, wife of another former prime minister, called him "a man with no moral compass." (Morgan told journalists Wednesday that she’d be on a list of banned guests, along with Heather Mills McCartney.)

As editor of The Daily Mirror, Morgan was found to have bought shares in a technology company shortly before the company was tipped by his paper's financial columnists. While the writers had to leave the Mirror, Morgan stayed on.

In 2004, under his editorship, the Mirror printed photographs depicting British soldiers abusing an Iraqi prisoner. Morgan was fired when it came out that the photos were a hoax - but Morgan maintains to this day that he never believed them to be forged, and still does not know of their source.

More ominous perhaps for his upcoming role, is his hotheaded history with talk shows.

British broadcaster Ian Hislop and presenter Clive Anderson both, while on air, charged Morgan with having photographers and reporters follow and spy on them. Morgan's response? He told Anderson that the photographers would be better hidden next time, and, referring to Hislop, asked the live audience:"Does anyone actually like him?"

In 2004, British TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson publicly punched Morgan three times at the British Press Awards for the Mirror's prying into his private life.

Last year Morgan even told The Guardian newspaper, "I like waging feuds."

But even those who consider him a “tabloid scumbag,” as one profiler in the UK’s Observer did in 2008, still find him irresistible.
“There is absolutely no good reason on this planet to like Piers Morgan,” the Observer’s Polly Vernon wrote. “His crimes are manifold. He's a show-off and a hypocrite and he's obsessed by celebrity and the benefits it can bring him. He thinks the whole of Fleet Street is jealous of him, because he's renounced the legitimacy of journalism for the bright lights and easy cash of populist telly.

“Problem is, I do. Morgan's entirely likeable. He is arrogant, he is pompous, he is pleased with himself; but he also knows how absurd his life is, how quickly and completely this could evaporate.”

Continue Reading
Text Size
-+reset Listen
Whether American cable audiences will have the same response is a matter of critical importance to CNN. Morgan’s placement marks the last big move in CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein’s revamping of the network’s primetime lineup, and Klein’s fortunes will be made or broken on Morgan’s performance.

Klein, who on Wednesday called the choice of Morgan “the most natural thing in the world,” brushed off questions about what was at stake for him or the network.

“The stakes are for the audiences, which deserve hard hitting, tough questioning and having officials held accountable. And that’s what we are focused on doing.”

One former CNN correspondent who didn’t want to be named was dismayed by the choice.

“It’s disappointing to see CNN slide further into the dubious business of tabloid journalism. CNN still has serious journalists doing first-rate reporting, like Candy Crowley for instance, but an increasing percentage of its air time is taken up by show hosts who are interested in provoking outrage, than providing context.”

But Frank Sesno, the former CNN correspondent who filled in for King in the 1990s, thinks Morgan might work.

“I think CNN needs a new voice in primetime. He’s going to be a new voice, and literally, with a new accent. He’s had a very interesting and unconventional background for this kind of thing that just may give a perspective and an edit and approach that’s different. And what CNN has to do it if it’s going to rejuvenate and reinvent itself, is it has to be true to its brand while being imaginative and creative enough to be different.”

Morgan said his interview wish list would start with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the organizer behind the mosque and community center near ground zero (who CNN already landed on Wednesday), and go on to include Mel Gibson, President Barack Obama and Lindsay Lohan.

Displaying his taste for mischief, he quipped that he’s “still planning a Glenn Beck-style rally in Central Park next summer and that he was “going for a million people to show up,” though he wasn't quite sure yet what it would be about.

Depending on who you ask, either the Marlins or Nationals were in gross violation of baseball etiquette Wednesday.

Everybody knew Nyjer Morgan was going to wear one. Tuesday, he steamrolled catcher Brett Hayes, causing a separated shoulder on a play where a slide would have sufficed. As expected, Volstad in the fourth inning hit Morgan at the belt and for a moment it seemed that where it would end.

Instead, Morgan in the Marlins’ estimation spat on the game’s unwritten code. The speedy Morgan stole second and third despite the fact the Nationals trailed 14-3 at the time. The Marlins were holding him on. Volstad didn’t admit to it, but Wes Helms confirmed Morgan running didn’t sit well.

“I think that’s the only reason we tried to go after him a second time,” Helms said. “Since he stole the bases, I think it pumped us up a little more and got to Volstad a little bit. We just have to stick together as a team and let them know we’re not going to stand for that. We’re a professional team. We’re not going to let that happen to us and we wouldn’t do it ourselves.

“I cannot stand when a guy shows somebody up or show the integrity of the game up to the fans or whatever. There’s just no place in baseball for that. In my opinion, you’re going to get what’s coming to you if you do that. Tonight, it was time we had to show him we weren’t going to put up with the way he was treating us, but also with the way he was trying to take bases down 10 runs. After he got hit, you know why he did it…I can’t really say anything good about a guy that doesn’t play the game the right way and doesn’t play for the integrity of the game.”

Volstad zipped a pitch behind Morgan in the sixth and Morgan charged.

Here’s Nats manager Jim Riggleman’s take on the stolen bases: “My feeling has always been, if you hit somebody, then you did what you set out to do. You hit him, and now if he decides to run on you, that’s his business. I got no problem with that. We decide when we run. The Florida Marlins will not decide when we run. We will decide when we run. Nobody will decide when we run. I don’t put restrictions on when somebody else can run. That’s not in my control. But nobody’s going to put the controls on me as to when our club runs. If Nyjer decides to run, he ran. That’s his business. He felt that’s the way I’m going to get my payback. Sometimes some guys get it in the form of going in hard at somebody at second base on a double play. I’ve seen that many times. But Nyjer took his revenge in the form of a stolen base. And I don’t have any problem with it.”

Were the Marlins justified in trying to hit Morgan a second time? Or was Morgan required to go to first, tail tucked firmly between legs, and make no attempt to advance on his own considering the circumstances?

Depending on who you ask, either the Marlins or Nationals were in gross violation of baseball etiquette Wednesday.

Everybody knew Nyjer Morgan was going to wear one. Tuesday, he steamrolled catcher Brett Hayes, causing a separated shoulder on a play where a slide would have sufficed. As expected, Volstad in the fourth inning hit Morgan at the belt and for a moment it seemed that where it would end.

Instead, Morgan in the Marlins’ estimation spat on the game’s unwritten code. The speedy Morgan stole second and third despite the fact the Nationals trailed 14-3 at the time. The Marlins were holding him on. Volstad didn’t admit to it, but Wes Helms confirmed Morgan running didn’t sit well.

“I think that’s the only reason we tried to go after him a second time,” Helms said. “Since he stole the bases, I think it pumped us up a little more and got to Volstad a little bit. We just have to stick together as a team and let them know we’re not going to stand for that. We’re a professional team. We’re not going to let that happen to us and we wouldn’t do it ourselves.

“I cannot stand when a guy shows somebody up or show the integrity of the game up to the fans or whatever. There’s just no place in baseball for that. In my opinion, you’re going to get what’s coming to you if you do that. Tonight, it was time we had to show him we weren’t going to put up with the way he was treating us, but also with the way he was trying to take bases down 10 runs. After he got hit, you know why he did it…I can’t really say anything good about a guy that doesn’t play the game the right way and doesn’t play for the integrity of the game.”

Volstad zipped a pitch behind Morgan in the sixth and Morgan charged.

Here’s Nats manager Jim Riggleman’s take on the stolen bases: “My feeling has always been, if you hit somebody, then you did what you set out to do. You hit him, and now if he decides to run on you, that’s his business. I got no problem with that. We decide when we run. The Florida Marlins will not decide when we run. We will decide when we run. Nobody will decide when we run. I don’t put restrictions on when somebody else can run. That’s not in my control. But nobody’s going to put the controls on me as to when our club runs. If Nyjer decides to run, he ran. That’s his business. He felt that’s the way I’m going to get my payback. Sometimes some guys get it in the form of going in hard at somebody at second base on a double play. I’ve seen that many times. But Nyjer took his revenge in the form of a stolen base. And I don’t have any problem with it.”

Were the Marlins justified in trying to hit Morgan a second time? Or was Morgan required to go to first, tail tucked firmly between legs, and make no attempt to advance on his own considering the circumstances?

RICHMOND, Va. (CBS/WDBJ/AP) Eight months after Morgan Harrington's murder, police have announced a new development in the case.

PICTURES: Morgan Harrington Missing

Forensic evidence gathered in the investigation into the slaying of the Virginia Tech student matches that from an unsolved 2005 abduction and sexual assault in northern Virginia, state police said Thursday.
State police spokeswoman Corinne Geller refused to identify the type of forensic evidence that was found.

Harrington's remains were found on an Albemarle County farm on Jan. 26, more than three months after she disappeared from a Metallica rock concert at the University of Virginia.

Police released a composite sketch of the suspect in the 2005 case based on the victim's description of her attacker, but warned that he may have changed his appearance.

In that case, a 26-year-old woman was walking home from a grocery store in Fairfax when a man grabbed her from behind, carried her to the pool area of a townhouse complex and sexually assaulted her.
Police are trying to identify the suspect, and attempting to determine what kind of contact he had with Harrington the night of her disappearance, and what his role may have been in her disappearance and death, Geller said.

PICTURES: Morgan Harrington Missing

"Before today, there was the abstraction of a murderer that killed our daughter, but now that you see a face with it, it makes you very angry," Dan Harrington said. "The anger that I have has kind of been multiplied because I now see a face of someone who did this to another human being."

On comments posted by Harrington's mother Gil on the family's website on Wednesday, she warned her daughter's killer that his luck would run out.

PICTURES: Morgan Harrington Missing

"That corpse will not rest. Morgan wants justice," she wrote to the "monster" who killed her daughter. "A day of reckoning is coming!"

The chief medical examiner's office has determined that Harrington's death was a homicide, but officials have said they have no further information on how she was killed. Her parents have said her bones were shattered.

Police have said the person who killed Harrington likely knew the area where her body was found in a remote hayfield 10 miles southwest of Charlottesville, where she was separated from her friends Oct. 17 while attending a Metallica concert. Investigators said only a person familiar with the farm or the immediate area would have dealt with the property's obstacles, including streams, fences and changing terrain.

The Harringtons said "a wealth of physical evidence" was found at the scene.

Dan Harrington said he hopes the sketch, despite its age, will register with someone who knew the suspect.

The suspect is described as a black male, 25 to 35 years old, approximately 6 feet tall with a medium build, with black hair, a beard and a mustache.

There is a $150,000 reward in the case.

RICHMOND, Va. (CBS/WDBJ/AP) Eight months after Morgan Harrington's murder, police have announced a new development in the case.

PICTURES: Morgan Harrington Missing

Forensic evidence gathered in the investigation into the slaying of the Virginia Tech student matches that from an unsolved 2005 abduction and sexual assault in northern Virginia, state police said Thursday.
State police spokeswoman Corinne Geller refused to identify the type of forensic evidence that was found.

Harrington's remains were found on an Albemarle County farm on Jan. 26, more than three months after she disappeared from a Metallica rock concert at the University of Virginia.

Police released a composite sketch of the suspect in the 2005 case based on the victim's description of her attacker, but warned that he may have changed his appearance.

In that case, a 26-year-old woman was walking home from a grocery store in Fairfax when a man grabbed her from behind, carried her to the pool area of a townhouse complex and sexually assaulted her.
Police are trying to identify the suspect, and attempting to determine what kind of contact he had with Harrington the night of her disappearance, and what his role may have been in her disappearance and death, Geller said.

PICTURES: Morgan Harrington Missing

"Before today, there was the abstraction of a murderer that killed our daughter, but now that you see a face with it, it makes you very angry," Dan Harrington said. "The anger that I have has kind of been multiplied because I now see a face of someone who did this to another human being."

On comments posted by Harrington's mother Gil on the family's website on Wednesday, she warned her daughter's killer that his luck would run out.

PICTURES: Morgan Harrington Missing

"That corpse will not rest. Morgan wants justice," she wrote to the "monster" who killed her daughter. "A day of reckoning is coming!"

The chief medical examiner's office has determined that Harrington's death was a homicide, but officials have said they have no further information on how she was killed. Her parents have said her bones were shattered.

Police have said the person who killed Harrington likely knew the area where her body was found in a remote hayfield 10 miles southwest of Charlottesville, where she was separated from her friends Oct. 17 while attending a Metallica concert. Investigators said only a person familiar with the farm or the immediate area would have dealt with the property's obstacles, including streams, fences and changing terrain.

The Harringtons said "a wealth of physical evidence" was found at the scene.

Dan Harrington said he hopes the sketch, despite its age, will register with someone who knew the suspect.

The suspect is described as a black male, 25 to 35 years old, approximately 6 feet tall with a medium build, with black hair, a beard and a mustache.

There is a $150,000 reward in the case.