Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[~n/t~]

I think a simple demonstration could be used, see it yourself, so to speak, to demonstrate that a HRD dog trained to alert only to actual human remains, not synthetic, not cross-trained, will not alert on things like garbage, feces, urine, etc. I do think a video and testimonials could be used, but I think most of us saw that at least one jury chose to ignore the "testimony" of the dogs, as well as the testimony of human witnesses regarding the scent of decomposition.

Unfortunately they chose to ignore all testimony in that case and I honestly don't believe it would have made a difference if the dog was there or not.

Again, I think it would be too risky. Same as with the can with the carpet and that's why it wasn't allowed. It could have gone either way.

 

[Oriah]

I think a simple demonstration could be used, see it yourself, so to speak, to demonstrate that a HRD dog trained to alert only to actual human remains, not synthetic, not cross-trained, will not alert on things like garbage, feces, urine, etc. I do think a video and testimonials could be used, but I think most of us saw that at least one jury chose to ignore the "testimony" of the dogs, as well as the testimony of human witnesses regarding the scent of decomposition.

Demonstrations are used all the time in court. Many are successful in aiding prosecution.

Note how the FBI studies and utilizes scent work:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/for.../fsc/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm

 

[Oriah]

bbm.....I'm not sure I understand the bolded part in your statement. If she was injured, why would the cadaver dog pick up human remains scent?

If she was injured to the point where evidence of human decomp was left behind.

 

[scmom]

Unfortunately they chose to ignore all testimony in that case and I honestly don't believe it would have made a difference if the dog was there or not.

Again, I think it would be too risky. Same as with the can with the carpet and that's why it wasn't allowed. It could have gone either way.

Agree on the first part, but as to the bolded part, in retrospect it's too bad the jury didn't have a private sniff of that can.

As to it being too risky, I'd have to go with the odds on a properly trained dog. But, that's just me.

 

[Oriah]

The problem seems to be that people who don't know the capabilities of HRD dogs refuse to allow themselves to be educated on the matter. Which brings me to the question of bringing the dog to the courtroom to demonstrate the area of expertise in question.

Bingo, scmom. Thank you.

HRD dogs (and their handlers) are often called to 'testify' in court.
If the training and consistancy is there- and the jury is willing and able to learn- it's a very useful tool for prosecution.

 

[Capri]

Just a quick thanks to handlers posting, learning lots from your first hand experience here

 

[JohnBull]

Too risky, imo I don't think any attorney would go that route but I could be wrong. IMO, showing a video and detailed certification of the dog (s) and perhaps written testimonials from previous cases (although I'm not sure a Judge would allow it) would be a lot safer than the dog getting a false positive in front of a jury.

Ah, but that's just the thing. If the dog is what it's cracked up to be, it's not going to get a false positive in front of the jury.

 

[Oriah]

Ah, but that's just the thing. If the dog is what it's cracked up to be, it's not going to get a false positive in front of the jury.

Yep.

Thus the importance of training in scent discrimination.

 

[~n/t~]

Ah, but that's just the thing. If the dog is what it's cracked up to be, it's not going to get a false positive in front of the jury.

Ah but there have been cases of false positives.

 

[JohnBull]

Ah but there have been cases of false positives.

I rest my case.

 

[Oriah]

Ah but there have been cases of false positives.

There are cases everywhere where investigative tools used in the gathering of evidence are called into question. Sort of like someone being cleared 30 years after a conviction based on new science.

But the better and more experienced the dog team, the better the chance of little or no false positives- in court, or in the field.

 

[lorann]

BBM:
There is no such thing as 'next best' when it comes to scent discrimination in working dogs. One cannot successfully train a dog to scent discriminate at an advanced level on secondary scents. All you can do is proof them OFF of that scent. Thus the not alerting on the ham sandwich in the kitchen.

You are correct in that many trainers and handlers DO cut corners and are lazy in proofing their dogs.

But- imvho- the FBI doesn't.

Many thanks to our experts here. I learned more about HRD dogs during the Peterson trial, and the info brought out at trial. I trust the dogs findings when it is proven the handlers are reputable and it is my opinion that the FBI has brought the best. Decomp near the bed. Doesn't prove who was responsible for it being there, but it does prove to me, someone was deceased near the bed.

 

[JohnBull]

For my part, I refuse to esteem any method of forensic anaysis as infallible. If I'm a juror I'll consider such evidence only as a means of buttressing other evidence. My decision will reflect the sum total of all the evidence working in synergy to assign a level of probability to the facts in question.

 

[1&2&3]

It is apparent that with all the information LE has, they do not have that "smoking gun" piece to arrest anyone! Let's hope the boys were able to give them a few new bits & pieces of the family dynamics that will lead LE to this missing clue.

At times, this case is beginning to remind me of the Kyron Horman case where his step-mother kept her mouth shut and over a year later there is no resolution!

Back to the dogs, the FL jury did not try to put those pieces together IMO. So all the evidence in the world would not have rendered a different verdict. After listening to the Michael Jackson trial, I realized how crazy, unprofessional, and disjointed the FL trial was! The judge included for being accepting of Baez's actions!

So, the dogs got a hit in DB's bedroom, the items of Lisa's taken from there were forensic tested. LE now has a better idea if Lisa is dead? LE does not know who, what when, or how? Or where they buried her? Because if they knew who and when, an arrest would be made? Correct?

 

[CHICANA]

For my part, I refuse to esteem any method of forensic anaysis as infallible. If I'm a juror I'll consider such evidence only as a means of buttressing other evidence. My decision will reflect the sum total of all the evidence working in synergy to assign a level of probability to the facts in question.

Wow...
Can you dumb that down for me ?

 

[JohnBull]

Wow...
Can you dumb that down for me ?

Don't let any piece of evidence, or forensic methodology, stand on its own.

 

[JohnBull]

So, the dogs got a hit in DB's bedroom, the items of Lisa's taken from there were forensic tested. LE now has a better idea if Lisa is dead? LE does not know who, what when, or how? Or where they buried her? Because if they knew who and when, an arrest would be made? Correct?

About the only thing the dog hit really tells them is that (assuming the dogs are properly trained, etc.) decomposing human tissue of some sort was on the carpet in the bedroom. They should take that for what it's worth. If it leads them to neglect every possibility other than that the child was murdered in the house, that's very wrongheaded, in my opinion.

 

[Dewey2Me1MoThyme]

Do we know who owned the home previous to JI? Has anyone ever died in that home? Did JI inherit the home?

 

[natsound]

Do we know who owned the home previous to JI? Has anyone ever died in that home? Did JI inherit the home?

It's been stated that many HRD dogs are trained to hit on recent human remains. They can be very specialized in what they're trained to detect. I may be alone, but I would assume that's the type of dog LE would have wanted in this instance.

 

[MissJames]

About the only thing the dog hit really tells them is that (assuming the dogs are properly trained, etc.) decomposing human tissue of some sort was on the carpet in the bedroom. They should take that for what it's worth. If it leads them to neglect every possibility other than that the child was murdered in the house, that's very wrongheaded, in my opinion.

BBM
But we don't know what LE is doing. I believe they are following up on leads and looking at others ,as well as the parents.
I just don't fall for the "bad cops just want an arrest". This is about a baby that might still be alive. This is a national case with FBI involvement.

Not directed at you,specifically JohnBull,but I kinda wonder where all distrust and dislike of LE is coming from :waitasec: I'm always amazed at the amount of work they put into a case and time it takes them to get the details.
If my child goes missing (and he has,which is why we have a service dog that also tracks ) I'm calling 911. I would expect to be questioned and for them to be suspicious. But I also believe they will help find my child.

In the Anthony case a second dog was brought in and it sounded like that was a typical way to verify a hit or consider it might be a false positive.
It really only becomes an issue if the hit is used in court during a trial.
LE knows better than anyone that the cadaver dog hit in DB's room could be from a former occupant.They aren't done yet.