Human Remains (*cadaver) Detection (HRD) dog questions and answers **NO DISCUSSION**

[norest4thewicked]

I don't consider myself a genius, but I do consider myself to be a fairly bright and informed person. I admit, the statements are extremely confusing to me. The part that is so confusing is the blood. The defense will say that it is menstrual blood or a bloody nose. The prosecution will say it is a scent from a dead human. That part just doesn't make sense to me.

Hopefully there is more info that will come out that will make this clear for me.

Thanks for your answer and I hope your injury is well healed...

 

[norest4thewicked]

But, what if there had been menstrual blood or bloody nose blood (sorry guys) on the floor from say a month ago? Would the dogs hit on that the same as a dead human laying there for an hour?

 

[Oriah]

Am I correct in that it would probably take "a lot" of blood/tissue, etc for the dog to hit if it was from a live person. For example, say I put my little one down for a nap and he happens to get a nose bleed. He manages to get a few drops of blood on his lovey. Would an HRD dog hit on the lovey? Or would it need to be something more substantial?

Something more substantial. And also it would have to have some age on it. So if you were to go in as your little one were having a nosebleed, change out his lovey- throw it in the wash- an HRD dog is NOT going to alert to his lovey. But if god forbid a little one falls out of their crib, lands head first on a carpet, proceeds to bleed heavily while also shedding skin cells and other biological matter from the injury- then yes, an HRD dog will likely hit on the carpet where the child landed. Does that make any sense? I feel like I am confusing everyone, and I don't want to do that.

HRD scent discrimination is like a chemical equation. Add a little bit of bleach to ammonia, and you get toxic fumes. And more bleach and more ammonia- even more toxic fumes. Throw in some toilet bowl cleaner and you might get an explosion- sending off completely different particles.
That's what it is like in an HRD dogs nose.

Oh I am SO probably confusing everyone, lol.

sarx is gonna slap me again.

 

[Wendy101]

I think a cadaver dog hits on dead people.

THe SAR dogs hit on scents from the live person.

 

[Abby Normal]

But, what if there had been menstrual blood or bloody nose blood (sorry guys) on the floor from say a month ago? Would the dogs hit on that the same as a dead human laying there for an hour?

Menstrual blood is compositionally different, and thus can be discriminated against. A cadaver dog shouldn't hit on that.

I've been doing some research, and it seems like Cadaver dogs are investigative techniques, not stand alone evidence. They help the investigators determine where to gather more evidence from. One link says that they should be used as reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. That's probably why they had to put the questionable comment by DB in there as well, to create more occurrences of reasonable suspicion that can together create probable cause.
IOW- the cadaver dog hit isn't "the proof", it's an indication that they should gather proof from that location. IF it was a hit from a bloody nose, or some such, they should be able to determine that from taking a closer look with forensics.

 

[Oriah]

I don't consider myself a genius, but I do consider myself to be a fairly bright and informed person. I admit, the statements are extremely confusing to me. The part that is so confusing is the blood. The defense will say that it is menstrual blood or a bloody nose. The prosecution will say it is a scent from a dead human. That part just doesn't make sense to me.

Hopefully there is more info that will come out that will make this clear for me.

Thanks for your answer and I hope your injury is well healed...

Sorry to be so confusing, norest4thewicked. I agree- that will be a bone of contention (no pun intended) in court. That's where the training of the dog(s) used comes into play.

I am completely refraining from passing judgement in this case- just trying to explain what I know regarding HRD alerts and training. And again- remember there is likely to be forensics either supporting or denying an HRD dog 'hit.' They are excellent investigative tools- but in court, HRD dog hits are usually followed with forensics. Sorry I have not been more helpful. Perhaps sarx can help explain better.

 

[MamaK]

So, if one fell out of the crib and shed a lot of blood, hair, etc (this just made me shudder... so glad I don't have an escape artist!) like a year ago, and I couldn't get that stain out. Then, the hrd dog might hit on that.

 

[Abby Normal]

Oh I am SO probably confusing everyone, lol.

sarx is gonna slap me again.

:floorlaugh:

I think you're making perfect sense, thanks for your help.

The bottom line is that cadaver dogs are well trained and aren't running around making bad hits. They are hitting on remnants of humans that can suggest foul play. They are an invaluable asset to the investigation, and I can't imagine trying to figure out where to get samples in a great big house without them.

Much appreciation to both you and Sarx for taking the time to share your knowledge. :woohoo::woohoo:

 

[Oriah]

Menstrual blood is compositionally different, and thus can be discriminated against. A cadaver dog shouldn't hit on that.

I've been doing some research, and it seems like Cadaver dogs are investigative techniques, not stand alone evidence. They help the investigators determine where to gather more evidence from. One link says that they should be used as reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. That's probably why they had to put the questionable comment by DB in there as well, to create more occurrences of reasonable suspicion that can together create probable cause.
IOW- the cadaver dog hit isn't "the proof", it's an indication that they should gather proof from that location. IF it was a hit from a bloody nose, or some such, they should be able to determine that from taking a closer look with forensics.

Correct.

 

[sarx]

LOL, are we having fun yet?
I probably should have explained why they wouldn't hit on tampons,pads, nosebleeds, but I was afraid it would just confuse further, so I made a blanket statement (which is my bad). Is everyone cleared up on it now? Lovin' the examples Oriah!

ETA-We also have K9 out here that are discriminating against blood that came out of a living body vs a deceased person.

 

[Oriah]

So, if one fell out of the crib and shed a lot of blood, hair, etc (this just made me shudder... so glad I don't have an escape artist!) like a year ago, and I couldn't get that stain out. Then, the hrd dog might hit on that.

Sorry- didn't want to send any parents into a panic attack!

But yes. I'll use an example of a case we worked years ago:
CAUTION: GRAPHIC

A parent pitched a baby against a drywall/baseboard- no paint on wall yet, residence under construction.

Parent brought baby to ER, where it died of tramatic brain injuries. Parent told ER docs that he had tripped down the stairs in his home, and dropped baby- and baby had landed at the bottom of the stairs (which was under construction) while carrying baby. ER staff believed parent, but did call LE to report possible child abuse. In the meantime, parent told construction crew that the blood, hair, etc on drywall was from his own head- tripped over construction material on the floor and smacked his head. Construction crew wiped off and then painted the wall.

Two weeks later, LE decided the story didn't fit and called for an HRD dog. Dog alerted on floor- not at the bottom of the stairs, where the parent had claimed the injury happened- but at the baseboard/wall where the baby hit in a different room. LE took a sample of the drywall and sent to forensics. Drywall being very porous- it had retained scent particles unique to the baby.

It became very clear to LE then that the story told by parent was not true.

Does that help explain how scent works for an HRD dog?

(Btw- this is NOT what I am saying happened in Lisa's case. Just trying to explain how HRD dogs might be used in a missing baby case.)

 

[tehcloser]

SARX and ORIAH..........

Thank You for the passion that ya'll have with the 4 legged peeps and for sharing that knowledge with us!

 

[Oriah]

LOL, are we having fun yet?
I probably should have explained why they wouldn't hit on tampons,pads, nosebleeds, but I was afraid it would just confuse further, so I made a blanket statement (which is my bad). Is everyone cleared up on it now? Lovin' the examples Oriah!

ETA-We also have K9 out here that are discriminating against blood that came out of a living body vs a deceased person.

Well apparently we have effectively confused everyone anyway, lol.

And yep- we got them doggies too.

 

[norest4thewicked]

Thanks for your answers sarx and oriah! I understand the concept as I am actually ex LE myself. I was just confused as each of you said something different. Now that we are all cleared up, I get where you are coming from. I appreciate your time!

 

[sarx]

Well apparently we have effectively confused everyone anyway, lol.

And yep- we got them doggies too.

On behalf of Oriah and I
SORRY!
lol.

This I think is the problem with dogs. What they do is highly scientific and in some ways while it seems "easy" to you and I, it would be like me listening to someone go into detail about neuro science or something. I would be totally lost. The other part of the equation is unlike many sciences where there are very rigid ways of doing things, dog SAR is somewhat of a free for all when it comes to training, which is why you get so many different levels of ability and so much contradicting information, because there really are people out there who are still letting their dogs hit on poop, kitty bones, pee, pads, etc.) The truth is, your dog will probably hit on anything that smells neat (and the stinkier the better), if you let them, that's why you train them that those things are NOT what we are looking for.

My point being (besides the fact that I need coffee), is that if we are confusing you, please just keep asking and saying you don't understand, it's ok. Oriah and I have very different styles in explaining things, and that's a really good thing, cuz if one of us isn't making sense to you, maybe the other will. Or when one of us is running off of no sleep and is making no sense to anyone, maybe the other has gotten a few hours of shut eye.

 

[sarx]

Thanks for your answers sarx and oriah! I understand the concept as I am actually ex LE myself. I was just confused as each of you said something different. Now that we are all cleared up, I get where you are coming from. I appreciate your time!

Sometimes our brains go different directions with the same end result and we don't convey that very well, sorry!

For those coming in and just now reading, I want to re-say...

These dogs in question were highly trained, using the most advanced techniques available. They knew what they were looking for and what to ignore.

A lot of what we talk about on WS are not dogs like this, so it is worth repeating.

 

[~n/t~]

Sometimes our brains go different directions with the same end result and we don't convey that very well, sorry!

For those coming in and just now reading, I want to re-say...

These dogs in question were highly trained, using the most advanced techniques available. They knew what they were looking for and what to ignore.

A lot of what we talk about on WS are not dogs like this, so it is worth repeating.

Are you referring to the dog (s) used in the search done on October 17th or are you talking in general terms?

If you are referring to the specific dog (s) used in this case, is there an article about them? TIA

 

[Jacie Estes]

Menstrual blood is compositionally different, and thus can be discriminated against. A cadaver dog shouldn't hit on that.

I've been doing some research, and it seems like Cadaver dogs are investigative techniques, not stand alone evidence. They help the investigators determine where to gather more evidence from. One link says that they should be used as reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. That's probably why they had to put the questionable comment by DB in there as well, to create more occurrences of reasonable suspicion that can together create probable cause.
IOW- the cadaver dog hit isn't "the proof", it's an indication that they should gather proof from that location. IF it was a hit from a bloody nose, or some such, they should be able to determine that from taking a closer look with forensics.

BBM

That is what has me confused about the hit on the carpet by JI/DB bed; they/LE did not remove pieces of the carpet for further study. ???? There must not have been anything to study further.

 

[sarx]

Are you referring to the dog (s) used in the search done on October 17th or are you talking in general terms?

If you are referring to the specific dog (s) used in this case, is there an article about them? TIA

Specific dogs brought in in the later days of the case primarily. I believe there are articles, but not sure. I am commenting on them because I know of them and trust their findings, which I don't do very often.

 

[Cazzie]

LOL, are we having fun yet?
I probably should have explained why they wouldn't hit on tampons,pads, nosebleeds, but I was afraid it would just confuse further, so I made a blanket statement (which is my bad). Is everyone cleared up on it now? Lovin' the examples Oriah!

ETA-We also have K9 out here that are discriminating against blood that came out of a living body vs a deceased person.

That makes me feel better.

What about nail clippings (from a live person) explaining an HRD dog hitting on an area? (ETA: reworded that question)

"Normal" nail clippings are taken from the part of the nail not attached to the nail bed, and are the oldest growth of that nail.
Today Show's tour of the house, which also has a quick segment with one of the Irwins attorneys (Joe Tacopina)...thanks for the link, Patty G!
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...14011#45014011 (there may be an ABC interview where he said similar)

He brought up the diaper/fecal matter again, and also said that toe nail clippings decompose and could cause a "cadaver" dog to hit. Great...
a "toe nail clippings and diaper" defense. /sarcasm

He prefaced what he said by having consulted with "THE" leading expert(s) in cadaver dogs (paraphrased). Guess he didn't consult with one who knows the current proper term "human remains detection" (HRD), which most of us know from reading here. :crazy:

I wonder how long (if ever) it takes for decomp (from death) to show up in nails that are still attached to the person. I'm recalling something about a "death band" in Caylee's hair from the CA trial. IINM, both hair and nails seem to grow after death, but it's more an illusion due to the scalp/skin drying or retracting.

How long (if ever) after a person's death could you clip the oldest part of the nail (the part not attached to the nail bed) and have it register as "true" decomp from a dead person? Is there a difference between that and a "normal" clipping from a live person that could be detected by an HRD dog? Are there nail-specialist HRD dogs yet?

Not trying to start a discussion...just giving background info for my questions. I realize that the only mention in the media of nail clippings in Lisa's case has been Tacopina's media interview(s), AFAIK. And I've mixed questions related to this case with general questions about HRD dogs.