Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[Clutchbag]

BBM


So true! One of the things that really bugged me is the way that Bradley stated she didn't ask her kids what they heard, didn't "compare notes" with the drinking buddy, didn't talk to Jeremy about that night.... :what: :waitasec:

i would love to hear a defence attorneys explanation for that!
:what:

not to mention DB not allowing police to interview her kids

 

[Whisperer]

The attorneys, with the parents, have used "The boys" for all their excuses. They have painted the parents as being concerned, loving, and most of all very worried that the boys would be scarred if they were to witness people on the lawn at a vigil or submit to any kind of questioning regarding their sister. DB has said she never questioned them for fear of harming them...yeah...right..okiedokiethen. She was scared of the backyard also...must be something in that yard at one time. DB has lots of things she's scared of....such as talking to LE by herself. JI shares the same fear. I guess that fear of talking alone w/o each other is contagious.

Logic, once again, dictates this is false posturing. They have carried it out and there is no reasonable explanation for this behavior other than guilt. One cannot be trusted to talk to LE w/o the other because one or both are protecting each other.

I realize now that this is the cadaver thread. Good thing they had Tacopina to throw out false accusations for them regarding dog behavior and their training for searches. Defense attorneys are masters at word manipulation and some are easily persuaded or ripe to want to believe people are not evil.

So with using the boys and nixing the dogs, they have overcome some people's accusations or thoughts about their presumed guilt.

 

[RANCH]

The attorneys, with the parents, have used "The boys" for all their excuses. They have painted the parents as being concerned, loving, and most of all very worried that the boys would be scarred if they were to witness people on the lawn at a vigil or submit to any kind of questioning regarding their sister. DB has said she never questioned them for fear of harming them...yeah...right..okiedokiethen. She was scared of the backyard also...must be something in that yard at one time. DB has lots of things she's scared of....such as talking to LE by herself. JI shares the same fear. I guess that fear of talking alone w/o each other is contagious.

Logic, once again, dictates this is false posturing. They have carried it out and there is no reasonable explanation for this behavior other than guilt. One cannot be trusted to talk to LE w/o the other because one or both are protecting each other.

Can we please try and use this thread for discussion about the cadaver dog hit? I'm sure that with all of the threads that are available to use we can find a more appropriate one for lawyers and DB's statements. Or maybe start a new thread?

 

[redheadedgal]

So with using the boys and nixing the dogs, they have overcome some people's accusations or thoughts about their presumed guilt.

i wonder how much of the general population actually believes cadaver dogs --and FBI cadaver dogs specifically-- alert on dirty diapers ??

 

[RANCH]

i wonder how much of the general population actually believes cadaver dogs --and FBI cadaver dogs specifically-- alert on dirty diapers ??

I would hope that the number is zero because it's absolutely incorrect.

 

[norest4thewicked]

The attorneys, with the parents, have used "The boys" for all their excuses. They have painted the parents as being concerned, loving, and most of all very worried that the boys would be scarred if they were to witness people on the lawn at a vigil or submit to any kind of questioning regarding their sister. DB has said she never questioned them for fear of harming them...yeah...right..okiedokiethen. She was scared of the backyard also...must be something in that yard at one time. DB has lots of things she's scared of....such as talking to LE by herself. JI shares the same fear. I guess that fear of talking alone w/o each other is contagious.

Logic, once again, dictates this is false posturing. They have carried it out and there is no reasonable explanation for this behavior other than guilt. One cannot be trusted to talk to LE w/o the other because one or both are protecting each other.

I realize now that this is the cadaver thread. Good thing they had Tacopina to throw out false accusations for them regarding dog behavior and their training for searches. Defense attorneys are masters at word manipulation and some are easily persuaded or ripe to want to believe people are not evil.

So with using the boys and nixing the dogs, they have overcome some people's accusations or thoughts about their presumed guilt.

I could hardly believe it when JT talked about dogs hitting on dirty diapers. I'm by no means an expert on dogs, but even I know that this is ludicrous. A cadaver dog hits on A CADAVER and NOT a dirty diaper. What is even worse is that there are actually people out there who believe this! And, God forbid, one of these people ends up on the jury!

 

[RANCH]

I could hardly believe it when JT talked about dogs hitting on dirty diapers. I'm by no means an expert on dogs, but even I know that this is ludicrous. A cadaver dog hits on A CADAVER and NOT a dirty diaper. What is even worse is that there are actually people out there who believe this! And, God forbid, one of these people ends up on the jury!

Your right, it's the most ridicules thing that I've heard in this case. As for a person on a jury in the future buying that nonsense then the prosecution is doomed. I'm wondering where they could find a expert on HRD dogs to testify to that drivel. I doubt that they can. MOO.

 

[RANCH]

I don't even understand why a defense attorney would use the "dirty diaper" defense if this case went to trial. It's so laughable it defies logic and there's no reason to use it at trial when it would be shot down in a heart beat.

All a good defense lawyer needs to bring reasonable doubt about a HRD dog hit without a body being found is to say that the dog hit on an old blood stain. He or she would be able to back that up with expert witness testimony about how it's possible for a HRD dog to hit on blood. There you go, you got reasonable doubt. MOO.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I don't even understand why a defense attorney would use the "dirty diaper" defense if this case went to trial. It's so laughable it defies logic and there's no reason to use it at trial when it would be shot down in a heart beat.

All a good defense lawyer needs to bring reasonable doubt about a HRD dog hit without a body being found is to say that the dog hit on an old blood stain. He or she would be able to back that up with expert witness testimony about how it's possible for a HRD dog to hit on blood. There you go, you got reasonable doubt. MOO.

An HR dog wouldn't hit on an old blood stain unless it was blood from a deceased person. Blood from a cut, menstrual blood, a bloody nose, etc. would not be hit on by an HR dog. They are trained to hit on human remains, not human secretions.

 

[redheadedgal]

All a good defense lawyer needs to bring reasonable doubt about a HRD dog hit without a body being found is to say that the dog hit on an old blood stain. He or she would be able to back that up with expert witness testimony about how it's possible for a HRD dog to hit on blood. There you go, you got reasonable doubt. MOO.

wonder if montano's jury will agree with you... that the evidence is easily explained by an old blood stain?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...21004_1_cadaver-dogs-body-parts-decomposition


and josh powell's (hypothetcially of course)... an old blood stain in the desert??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-police-cadaver-dogs-pick-scents-desert.html



and, if cadaver dog evidence is so easily explained, why do defense attorneys fight so hard to exclude the evidence from trials?

*Evans delivered her decision after Lane's defense team spent more than two hours trying to discredit the relatively new scientific method of using cadaver dogs to detect human decomposition.

http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/canine-evidence-allowed-in-court.html


*Prosecutors in Sam Parker's murder trial won't be able to use evidence based on cadaver dogs' response to a vehicle operated by his wife, Theresa Parker.

Superior Court Judge Jon "Bo" Wood granted the defense's motion less than two weeks before the trial is scheduled to start Aug. 17.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/aug/07/cadaver-dogs-out-of-parker-trial/


*Attorneys for Eugene Zapata, charged last year with murder for the disappearance and presumed death of his wife more than 30 years ago, want to keep any mention of cadaver-sniffing dogs away from jurors, according to motions filed late last week.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-167905928.html


*By Wednesday afternoon defense attorney Jose Baez questioned the accuracy of cadaver dogs "alerting" on the trunk of Casey Anthony's car and the backyard of her family's home.

Baez and the rest of the defense team want these pieces of evidence – and other scientific findings to be considered today during more rounds of hearings – excluded from the Anthony's upcoming first-degree murder trial.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...earing-20110323_1_defense-team-dogs-jose-baez

 

[RANCH]

Possibly. It would largely depend on what kind of surface the blood was deposited on.

For example, I too had an injury in the past year that produced a lot of blood inside a residence. Actually it was a trail from outside to inside, which may help explain even further.

In my situation; there was blood deposited on grass, then on dirt, then on cement, then on sealed hardwood floors, then on tile, then on a towel, then on stainless steel.

We cleaned everything up, of course- but certain surfaces retain HR scent particles (such as blood) much longer than others. The concrete, for example. Scrubbed it with bleach and can't see a thing. But one of our HRD dogs will still hit on it if we put him to work.

The tile? Scrubbed that too- but the grout retains the scent. He'll hit on that also. The sealed hardwood floors- no. The towel we threw away, so I've no idea, lol. If we hadn't thrown it away, I guarantee he'd be hitting on that. The stainless steel- no. But that's because it is a sink, and not a sealed stainless steel container.

Does that make any sense?

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.

An HR dog wouldn't hit on an old blood stain unless it was blood from a deceased person. Blood from a cut, menstrual blood, a bloody nose, etc. would not be hit on by an HR dog. They are trained to hit on human remains, not human secretions.

These posts by Oriah explain how a HRD dog can hit on blood from a living person and why supporting forensic evidence is important.

 

[RANCH]

wonder if montano's jury will agree with you... that the evidence is easily explained by an old blood stain?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...21004_1_cadaver-dogs-body-parts-decomposition


and josh powell's (hypothetcially of course)... an old blood stain in the desert??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-police-cadaver-dogs-pick-scents-desert.html



and, if cadaver dog evidence is so easily explained, why do defense attorneys fight so hard to exclude the evidence from trials?

*Evans delivered her decision after Lane's defense team spent more than two hours trying to discredit the relatively new scientific method of using cadaver dogs to detect human decomposition.

http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/canine-evidence-allowed-in-court.html


*Prosecutors in Sam Parker's murder trial won't be able to use evidence based on cadaver dogs' response to a vehicle operated by his wife, Theresa Parker.

Superior Court Judge Jon "Bo" Wood granted the defense's motion less than two weeks before the trial is scheduled to start Aug. 17.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/aug/07/cadaver-dogs-out-of-parker-trial/


*Attorneys for Eugene Zapata, charged last year with murder for the disappearance and presumed death of his wife more than 30 years ago, want to keep any mention of cadaver-sniffing dogs away from jurors, according to motions filed late last week.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-167905928.html


*By Wednesday afternoon defense attorney Jose Baez questioned the accuracy of cadaver dogs "alerting" on the trunk of Casey Anthony's car and the backyard of her family's home.

Baez and the rest of the defense team want these pieces of evidence – and other scientific findings to be considered today during more rounds of hearings – excluded from the Anthony's upcoming first-degree murder trial.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...earing-20110323_1_defense-team-dogs-jose-baez

I only have only followed the Caylee Anthony murder case out of all of your examples so I will give you my take on that case. I never did understand why Jose Baez fought the HRD dog evidence when in his opening statement he claimed that Caylee died in an accident and Casey hid that fact for 31 days because of fear and emotional issues.

The prosecution had overwhelming evidence that Caylee was dead and decomposing in the trunk so why not just say that Casey put her there after the accident? Jose Baez's claims were ridicules in my opinion and there not worth spit. As for the P12 being idiots, that's for the Caylee forum.

 

[norest4thewicked]

These posts by Oriah explain how a HRD dog can hit on blood from a living person and why supporting forensic evidence is important.

While I very much respect Oriah and what she does, even she made it clear earlier in threads that there is a lot of confusion in this. At one point, her and SARX contradicted each other. As well, I have a close friend who is a dog handler here and directly denied that a trained HR dog will hit on anything but human remains. My friend works for the FBI here in my city and I believe what he tells me.

 

[RANCH]

While I very much respect Oriah and what she does, even she made it clear earlier in threads that there is a lot of confusion in this. At one point, her and SARX contradicted each other. As well, I have a close friend who is a dog handler here and directly denied that a trained HR dog will hit on anything but human remains. My friend works for the FBI here in my city and I believe what he tells me.

I'm willing to look at any links that can support your point of view. I have done a lot of research and have posted links that support what Oriah says and that's why I have my opinion on what the "FBI" dog hit can tell us in this case.

 

[norest4thewicked]

I'm willing to look at any links that can support your point of view. I have done a lot of research and have posted links that support what Oriah says and that's why I have my opinion on what the "FBI" dog hit can tell us in this case.

It really isn't that important to me. I feel DB had something to do with Lisa's disappearance without the dog hit. That only strengthens my views. Even the links that you posted from Oriah say that it is a confusing thing. My information comes from someone who is not confused and had no trouble at all stating what he stated. So, you are perfectly in your right to believe what you want to believe, as I do to believe what I do. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[redheadedgal]

in post 940, i asked why, if there was a possibility the dog hit on old blood, did JT say it was a dirty diaper (or 10 other non human things)? why didn't he tell a story about a gash to a leg or a stubbed bleeding toe? he said nothing about old blood. surely if it was blood (and i don't believe it was) deb would've "remembered" why there was blood on an area on the floor near the bed ???

oriah isn't FBI, right? personally, i'd believe the FBI about the FBI's assets (i.e. dogs):

But Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant and former FBI special agent, said cadaver dogs are typically accurate.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-irwin-family-attorney-cadaver-dogs-misleading/story?id=14790822

 

[redheadedgal]

It really isn't that important to me. I feel DB had something to do with Lisa's disappearance without the dog hit. That only strengthens my views. Even the links that you posted from Oriah say that it is a confusing thing. My information comes from someone who is not confused and had no trouble at all stating what he stated. So, you are perfectly in your right to believe what you want to believe, as I do to believe what I do. We will have to agree to disagree.

agree. and congrats again !! xoxo :seeya:

 

[norest4thewicked]

agree. and congrats again !! xoxo :seeya:

THANK YOU!!! I'm truly excited!

 

[RANCH]

didn't JT "try" to explain the hit as being dirty diapers or toe nails or "about 10 non-human things"? i didn't hear anything about why there was blood on an area near the floor in the bedroom...

In my opinion Joe Tacopina doesn't know what he's talking about. If he said tooth instead of toenail he would have been right. As for why blood could be on the bedroom floor is because it's not an uncommon occurrence for someone to sustain an injury and bleed. So it's not hard to imagine that sometime in the past someone bled onto the bedroom floor and the "FBI" dog alerted to that blood.

We know that well trained HRD dogs have excellent accuracy rates above 90%. But we also should keep in mind the limitations of what a positive hit can tell us. Can the "FBI" dog hit in the bedroom tell us for certain that a dead Lisa Irwin was in that room? In my opinion the answer is no.

http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

in post 940, i asked why, if there was a possibility the dog hit on old blood, did JT say it was a dirty diaper (or 10 other non human things)? why didn't he tell a story about a gash to a leg or a stubbed bleeding toe? he said nothing about old blood. surely if it was blood (and i don't believe it was) deb would've "remembered" why there was blood on an area on the floor near the bed ???

oriah isn't FBI, right? personally, i'd believe the FBI about the FBI's assets (i.e. dogs):

But Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant and former FBI special agent, said cadaver dogs are typically accurate.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-irwin-family-attorney-cadaver-dogs-misleading/story?id=14790822

I brought back your post #940 and my response about Tacopina's stupid and laughable statement about the "dirty diapers." And a link that shows the high accuracy rate of HRD dogs.

How would Tacopina know about blood being left in that room from years ago? For that matter, how would DB know about blood deposited on the floor years before she moved there?

You don't have to believe Oriah or any of the links that I have provided. But before you minimize a verified experts opinion on this forum you should at least show us why she is wrong in her statements with links to back it up.

As for FBI "assets" being the HRD dogs, didn't we learn that the FBI farms out their work to independent contractors? You keep saying that you know for sure that Martin Grime and some of his dogs worked the Lisa Irwin case. He's not an FBI agent is he? Does the FBI own the dogs that he uses? I think that the answer to both is NO.

I put Oriah in the same class as Grime. Their experts in working dogs. Now granted I don't know about Oriah's track history compared to Grime's. He does have some blemishes that taint his record but he's testified successfully in court recently. So I have some doubts about Grime but not Oriah. All I can say is that Oriah seems to be honest and sincere in her posts. Has Grime ever said that all HRD dogs will not "hit" on blood ? I'd like to know his opinion on that.

 

[norest4thewicked]

in post 940, i asked why, if there was a possibility the dog hit on old blood, did JT say it was a dirty diaper (or 10 other non human things)? why didn't he tell a story about a gash to a leg or a stubbed bleeding toe? he said nothing about old blood. surely if it was blood (and i don't believe it was) deb would've "remembered" why there was blood on an area on the floor near the bed ???

oriah isn't FBI, right? personally, i'd believe the FBI about the FBI's assets (i.e. dogs):

But Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant and former FBI special agent, said cadaver dogs are typically accurate.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/baby-lisa-irwin-family-attorney-cadaver-dogs-misleading/story?id=14790822

Here are some threads right here from WS that respond to what I said earlier...the information that I got from my friend:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-152258.html


sarx
10-21-2011, 05:04 PM


3) can cadaver dogs hit on urine and blood?


3.
HRD dogs should not be hitting on anything that comes from a living body.


sarx
10-21-2011, 08:12 PM
1) So, the dogs can only hit on a scent if the dead body was in direct contact with the surface? Unlike dogs that track scents?


HRD dogs will also hit on what is called transfer scent. Say you touch your dead grandmother and then grab your phone, they'll hit on the phone as well.

sarx
10-22-2011, 12:06 AM
If someone else- a pervious owner, died in the house that baby Lisa disappeared from, would a scent dog hit on the previous owners scent? Or on baby Lisa's scent? TIA!
Lisa's