Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - # 5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
deugirtni said:
Unless, since it has been reported the family arrived the 'night before', he arrived already wearing his jammies?

ETA.. just thought thought... it is likely that he would have had a favorite blanket, pillow, stuffed animal, etc, so there is that.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying the dogs may not have been able to find him because they didn't have a very good sample to start with.

I did a little more research about "sniffer" dogs. They're generally used to sniff out drugs or contraband and track criminals. We call the ones needed in William's case "search and rescue" dogs.

Then I found this:
http://crimebodge.com/fool-a-sniffer-dog/
It's not too hard to throw them off your trail if you really want to. Just drop a burger.
 
loveamystery said:
I'm just saying the dogs may not have been able to find him because they didn't have a very good sample to start with.

I did a little more research about "sniffer" dogs. They're generally used to sniff out drugs or contraband and track criminals. We call the ones needed in William's case "search and rescue" dogs.

Then I found this:
http://crimebodge.com/fool-a-sniffer-dog/
It's not too hard to throw them off your trail if you really want to. Just drop a burger.
Click to expand...
Now this is interesting .. from link above. .. dogs may well not have been able to pick up a scent trail of he was PICKED UP and walked away. .

4) ODOURS OUT OF RANGE

A dog may have a very powerful sense of smell, but it’s range is actually very shallow. Hence why they spend so much time snuffling close to the ground.

Therefore the higher up the smell is, the less likely the dog will locate it.

Unless the handler is willing to lift the dog up so it can hoover everything above shoulder height, the dogs search is restricted to whatever locations it can clamber into.
 
He was running arround the house according to reports from family, before going missing. So if the dogs couldn't find his scent on the property, that's quite odd. More like more misreporting probably. As I highlighted early from the MSM reporting, the fact that over 100 people were in the bush, some with dogs, BEFORE the cadavers arrived, thereby contaminating the immediate and local bush.
 
The sniffer dogs could not track Gary Tweddle either. He ran from his hotel (was seen on CCTV), paced around on and by a roadway (he was seen there), ventured 2km away on foot and into the bush, and went over a cliff. The dogs picked up no scent of him.

They had good samples of his scent. They knew he couldn’t have gone too far. They searched for days and days.

The dogs are great, but they are not infallible.
 
Blessed said:
Now this is interesting .. from link above. .. dogs may well not have been able to pick up a scent trail of he was PICKED UP and walked away. .

4) ODOURS OUT OF RANGE

A dog may have a very powerful sense of smell, but it’s range is actually very shallow. Hence why they spend so much time snuffling close to the ground.

Therefore the higher up the smell is, the less likely the dog will locate it.

Unless the handler is willing to lift the dog up so it can hoover everything above shoulder height, the dogs search is restricted to whatever locations it can clamber into.
Click to expand...

Good point Blessed. So if WT was 'carried' away, the dogs would be even more fallible. I wonder if there are any case examples where the dogs picked up a missing persons scent after they were carried away? I wonder if the police ever got an item of BS for the dogs to smell to see if his scent went in the bush too?
 
I read that humans shed a LOT of skin cells all the time, and that is what hopefully the dogs would be following, so it may not matter if the subject was picked up and carreid? In any case, it seems there are many different kinds of sniffer dogs.. see attached link, very interesting. I wonder if LE branches have access to all of the different types of dogs, and if not, perhaps the searching isn't always going to net the same results? I had no idea there were so many specialized 'sniffer dogs', wow.. these dogs are just amazing. There are the dogs that track with nose to round, and then those that track by air, depending on which type of sniffer dog, and what it has been trained to do specifically. It seems from reading, that a very specialized dog would have to be used in a case like this, where multiple people have potentially trampled upon the same ground prior to the dog's arrival, where the terrain is tough, etc. MOO

http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm

Blessed said:
Now this is interesting .. from link above. .. dogs may well not have been able to pick up a scent trail of he was PICKED UP and walked away. .

4) ODOURS OUT OF RANGE

A dog may have a very powerful sense of smell, but it’s range is actually very shallow. Hence why they spend so much time snuffling close to the ground.

Therefore the higher up the smell is, the less likely the dog will locate it.

Unless the handler is willing to lift the dog up so it can hoover everything above shoulder height, the dogs search is restricted to whatever locations it can clamber into.
Click to expand...
 
The detective was quoted in several MSM as saying the dogs had been unable to pick up any sign of WT. Whether he forgot to mention 'aside from on the lawn where he was running', or whether the dogs found nothing at all anywhere at all, is unknown.

Preye said:
He was running arround the house according to reports from family, before going missing. So if the dogs couldn't find his scent on the property, that's quite odd. More like more misreporting probably. As I highlighted early from the MSM reporting, the fact that over 100 people were in the bush, some with dogs, BEFORE the cadavers arrived, thereby contaminating the immediate and local bush.
Click to expand...
 
Does anyone know whether William was wearing footwear when he vanished? I can see he is barefoot on the decking.

Also, I am a great believer in the skills of trained dogs, having read a lot about them during the McCann case, so I have a slight issue with the term 'fallible' when referring to the dogs. As I see it, they alert to the scent they are sniffing for if they locate it, and they don't alert if they don't locate that scent. So when we read that the dogs did not alert, that doesn't mean they have failed, it just means that the scent was not located - it may have not been imprinted on surroundings. I am no expert on this but I recall reading that textured things 'hold' scents better than some non-textured things, so tree bark may hold a scent better than a smooth metal garage door, for instance. I recall reading that a child in a pushchair/buggy could leave a trackable scent if moving next to a shrubby hedge, given certain weather conditions in the duration between event and tracking attempt. Apart from the trees, the immediate area around the house does not have a lot of texture to retain the scent. The grass is short, there are no wooden gates that William would have to touch and open in order to run a complete lap of the house - in fact he would probably not need to touch a thing on his journey. 'Chaseys' suggests fast, unlingering play - less imprint time.

Also, looking at the picture of William, he seemed to be wearing synthetic blend pyjamas (I have 11years experience in the clothing industry); maybe fibre 'shedding' (that would contain his scent) is minimised as the fibres are smooth and move over each other with less friction than with 100% natural fibres.

The one thing we do 'know' is that William was on that decking that morning for that photo. It makes no sense to me that the dogs would not pick up his scent at that exact spot that we see his skin in contact with. I guess we have just not been 'told' if they did or didn't.

It's all a mystery to me, though I still firmly believe that the young fella was taken from the immediate area, and did not wander off.

Jmo.
 
Thanks jigzy.

There were 4 other people at the house and he was running around the yard with his sister. All of that would contaminate the area with other scents.

It's not like he lived there and had his own room with all his things. He was only there one night. I wonder if the reason they were looking for things that may have been thrown from a car was because they really wanted those spiderman pj's.

Cadaver dogs are different. They're trained to find dead humans only, sometimes under heaps of rubble.

The site http://www.ussartf.org/dogs_search_rescue.htm is for the United States Search and Rescue Task Force which was created after 9/11/01. It's an old site, many of the links from the home page aren't working, or they're not open to the public. It seems now, we have private search teams that have dogs going out on searches. That's what happened in the searches for Caylie Anthony and Maureen Kelly, if you're familiar.
 
jigzy said:
Does anyone know whether William was wearing footwear when he vanished? I can see he is barefoot on the decking.
Click to expand...


It has been reported that William was wearing sandals like these one .. could even be these exact ones.

1410758934864_wps_86_Kendall_search_for_missin.jpg


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...land-dressed-favourite-Spiderman-costume.html
 
According to family reports synthetic sandals. However on the deck he had bare feet which to me clearly appeared dirty on the soles indicating running around barefoot. At some stage WT’s parents might have put sandals on him after he had already been running around without shoes.

Cadaver dogs sometimes are inappropriate for the task at hand, and the handlers can certainly be fallible. A handler can misinterpret what a cadaver dog is trying to say, or as mentioned a handler may fail to lift a dogs nose high enough.

I have no idea if there is a difference between a “cadaver” dog or “sniffer” dog but MSM reported “cadaver” dogs were used. With cadaver meaning “corpse” how successful is a cadaver dog if there is no cadaver? Not 100% infallible according to this article:

Cadaver dogs learn to spot the "smell of death" and find its source during the training process, which involves exposing them to either actual human remains—blood, teeth, bones—or pseudoscent, an artificial substance that re-creates the death odor. (One chemical company markets several pseudoscent formulas for training cadaver dogs—recently dead, post-decomposition, and drowning victim.) The dogs also learn to differentiate human remains from animal remains.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/scent_of_a_dead_woman.html
 
17th Sep
“Search teams are going back over all areas, including dams and waterways, today,” Superintendent Fehon said.
Neither police sniffer dogs, nor cadaver dogs, were able to pick up a trail.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-william-tyrell/story-e6frg6nf-1227060711820

21st Jan
A septic tank and a fire pit were excavated at the property.
Sniffer dogs have also been taken to the semirural Bonny Hills home.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-at-nsw-property/story-e6frg6nf-1227191618077
 
Thanks South Aus, the article I read i think mentioned only cadaver dogs but just saw another article which mentioned sniffers and cadavers. Both bases covered then.
 
Just wondering... are rewards ever offered for missing persons cases in Australia?
 
Seeing that adorable face just kills me. :candle:
 
Good point about reward money, surely william is worth it, might bring someone out of the woodwork with some financial reward
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 2,089 (members: 138, guests: 1,951)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
1,951
Total visitors
2,089
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,050
Messages
18,133,978
Members
231,224
Latest member
bdeem713
Back
Top