Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[wvjules]

BBM

Search warrant stated -- 'The cadaver dog indicated a positive "hit" for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed.'

Not on the floor - NEAR the floor.

Read here -- http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

:waitasec:


Also, has it been stated ANYWHERE that a second dog was brought in to confirm the findings of the original dog?

 

[Ronso]

We're assuming DB and JI know the ins-and-outs when it comes to HRD dogs. I know quite a bit, but most people wouldn't know that as soon as someone dies, they give off gasses that a dog could detect. Maybe DB thought she was safe allowing the dogs in because baby Lisa wasn't dead for long before she disposed of her. Maybe she didn't think a newly deceased child would leave a smell on the items she could've possibly carried her away in, and thought she had nothing to worry about.

If I were going to bet on the defense team or the dog(s)... my money is on the dog(s).

JMO

 

[natsound]

I don't think a deceased Lisa ever touched the ground. I think DB held her as she passed, or very soon after she passed. I think clothing (DB's or Baby Lisa's) or a blanket was discarded at the foot of the bed which resulted in the positive hit. I think DB thought the body never touched the ground so she was safe in consenting to a search.

Great theory.

 

[natsound]

We're assuming DB and JI know the ins-and-outs when it comes to HRD dogs. I know quite a bit, but most people wouldn't know that as soon as someone dies, they give off gasses that a dog could detect. Maybe DB thought she was safe allowing the dogs in because baby Lisa wasn't dead for long before she disposed of her. Maybe she didn't think a newly deceased child would leave a smell on the items she could've possibly carried her away in, and thought she had nothing to worry about.

If I were going to bet on the defense team or the dog(s)... my money is on the dog(s).

JMO

I agree that DB and JI may not be well-versed on cadaver dogs. The blanket and glo-worm had probably been washed during the time that passed before the search. Perhaps DB thought that would take care of the scent. JMO

 

[TorisMom003]

If the general theory is that DB has followed other missing children cases to the point that she was able to kill Lisa and then put her somewhere that LE and FBI can not find her, then how can it also be thought that DB would not know enough about the dogs to think that it would be cool to allow one to search the home? Either she knows about cases and followed them well enough to not make any mistakes or she didn't. I don't see how that logic can be used for one or two aspects of the case but then dismissed for other parts.

MOO

 

[Chris_Texas]

If the general theory is that DB has followed other missing children cases to the point that she was able to kill Lisa and then put her somewhere that LE and FBI can not find her, then how can it also be thought that DB would not know enough about the dogs to think that it would be cool to allow one to search the home? Either she knows about cases and followed them well enough to not make any mistakes or she didn't. I don't see how that logic can be used for one or two aspects of the case but then dismissed for other parts.

MOO

They got her permission to search. The did not NEED her permission to search.

 

[Chris_Texas]

I read yesterday where the home was 63 years old, so I have a few questions.. does anyone know?
1. How long does "cadaver" smell stay in fabric such as carpet, or blankets? Even after washing? (in the case of the blanket)
2. Do they own this home or rent it?

Could it be possible that an elderly couple lived in this house previosly, and someone died in that room of natural causes, and the dogs hit on that smell?Or that the blaket was bought second hand where an infant died of something, SIDS, or the like?
I also read where cadaver dogs will hit on dead things from a body, such as hair with the root atached, and toe nails... is that true?

Is there really a reason to be concerned with the cadaver dogs "hitting" on something??

These questions were addressed pretty extensively in the "ask the HRD Dog experts" thread. There answers seemed to be (if I recall correctly) that it depends on the dogs and handler. A basic "lower certification" trained dog might not be able to communicate the difference between a new and ancient death, but an expert dog could do so with no problems. In the same way, a lower-trained (or improperly trained) dog MIGHT hit on blood from a living person that has since decayed (apparently some dogs are initially trained using blood) but an elite dog can tell the difference easily. (((AGAIN, as I recall them saying -- I am no expert)))

And finally, a really elite dog can actually be told not just to find human remains, but to find a specific person's remains. Both HRD Dog handlers in that thread seemed to agree that THEIR dogs would not hit on anything but the correct target, and would not confuse old with new or think blood or hair were human remains.

It is reasonable to assume that both LE and the FBI have access to the best dogs and handlers in the world.

 

[BritsKate]

If the general theory is that DB has followed other missing children cases to the point that she was able to kill Lisa and then put her somewhere that LE and FBI can not find her, then how can it also be thought that DB would not know enough about the dogs to think that it would be cool to allow one to search the home? Either she knows about cases and followed them well enough to not make any mistakes or she didn't. I don't see how that logic can be used for one or two aspects of the case but then dismissed for other parts.

MOO

Respectfully I have avidly followed cases for 25 years and I would not have a clue where to place a body in order to avoid detection. I might get lucky but it wouldn't have anything to do with following these cases.

The murderers of Kyron, Caylee, Haleigh, Hailey, Skelton boys, Schepp twins, Aaliyah Lunsford, Venus Stewart, Lindsey Baum and scores of others got lucky.

Despite me having followed these cases - and my version of following is a lot more in-depth than just watching news or headlines - I still didn't know about luminol, fingerprinting, blood spatter, spatial patterns of disposals, decomp rates and a whole lot more until I specifically researched those areas. There is a lot I can tell you about the psychology behind crime (which is where my interest lay) but little I could tell you about the criminal investigative techniques involved - dogs included. Everything I know about dogs is either from trials or specifically researching that information (much to my sister's dismay since she trains dogs!)

JMHO and FWIW

 

[wvjules]

They got her permission to search. The did not NEED her permission to search.

They did prior to the search warrant.

 

[cachmo]

We're assuming DB and JI know the ins-and-outs when it comes to HRD dogs. I know quite a bit, but most people wouldn't know that as soon as someone dies, they give off gasses that a dog could detect. Maybe DB thought she was safe allowing the dogs in because baby Lisa wasn't dead for long before she disposed of her. Maybe she didn't think a newly deceased child would leave a smell on the items she could've possibly carried her away in, and thought she had nothing to worry about.

If I were going to bet on the defense team or the dog(s)... my money is on the dog(s).

JMO

Thats what Ive ben thinking too.
I have followed missing chidrens cases a lot!!!! However, untill the thread with Sarx and Oriah I had no idea that a dog could pick the scent in that small amount of time. I had ASSumed the time to be several hours.
IMO it is possible for DB to have followed missing chidren and known how good these dogs can be.
MOO I do NOT believe the FBI brought in poorly trained dogs or handlers. I am willing to bet that they are highly certified. Again MOO

 

[Oriah]

These questions were addressed pretty extensively in the "ask the HRD Dog experts" thread. There answers seemed to be (if I recall correctly) that it depends on the dogs and handler. A basic "lower certification" trained dog might not be able to communicate the difference between a new and ancient death, but an expert dog could do so with no problems. In the same way, a lower-trained (or improperly trained) dog MIGHT hit on blood from a living person that has since decayed (apparently some dogs are initially trained using blood) but an elite dog can tell the difference easily. (((AGAIN, as I recall them saying -- I am no expert)))

And finally, a really elite dog can actually be told not just to find human remains, but to find a specific person's remains. Both HRD Dog handlers in that thread seemed to agree that THEIR dogs would not hit on anything but the correct target, and would not confuse old with new or think blood or hair were human remains.

It is reasonable to assume that both LE and the FBI have access to the best dogs and handlers in the world.

BBM:
I agree with this.

Not bolded, the LE part. Only because many LE have other types of working dogs, working with them- with different types and quality of training.

But if the FBI is looking for an HRD dog, they know who to call. And they will likely require a non disclosure agreement as well. We may never know what other dogs were brought in.

 

[NancyA]

Thats what Ive ben thinking too.
I have followed missing chidrens cases a lot!!!! However, untill the thread with Sarx and Oriah I had no idea that a dog could pick the scent in that small amount of time. I had ASSumed the time to be several hours.
IMO it is possible for DB to have followed missing chidren and known how good these dogs can be.
MOO I do NOT believe the FBI brought in poorly trained dogs or handlers. I am willing to bet that they are highly certified. Again MOO

I agree that the FBI probably brought only the best dogs, my only reservation in this case (and probably one of the major planks in the fence I'm sitting on) is that as yet we have no official confirmation that a SECOND dog hit on the same place/article that the first dog did and given that there are documented incidences of false positive alerts, rare though they might be, I'm awaiting such confirmation.

 

[Oriah]

Thats what Ive ben thinking too.
I have followed missing chidrens cases a lot!!!! However, untill the thread with Sarx and Oriah I had no idea that a dog could pick the scent in that small amount of time. I had ASSumed the time to be several hours.
IMO it is possible for DB to have followed missing chidren and known how good these dogs can be.
MOO I do NOT believe the FBI brought in poorly trained dogs or handlers. I am willing to bet that they are highly certified. Again MOO

As to whether or not 'following cases' would help with understanding the capabilities and reliability of an excellent HRD dog- the best way I can think to explain is you'd have to have one and work one to know. And even then you'd be periodically surprised.

 

[Oriah]

I agree that the FBI probably brought only the best dogs, my only reservation in this case (and probably one of the major planks in the fence I'm sitting on) is that as yet we have no official confirmation that a SECOND dog hit on the same place/article that the first dog did and given that there are documented incidences of false positive alerts, rare though they might be, I'm awaiting such confirmation.

False positives are actually quite common, which is why second dogs are often brought in to confirm HRD alerts in cases like Lisa's. (They should be, anyway.) But as I mentioned upthread- a dog team may have signed a non disclosure agreement, especially if working for the FBI or military. So we may never have access to that info, unless a criminal case goes to trial and the handler testifies. Does that make any sense, or am I explaining this really poorly?

 

[NancyA]

False positives are actually quite common, which is why second dogs are often brought in to confirm HRD alerts in cases like Lisa's. (They should be, anyway.) But as I mentioned upthread- a dog team may have signed a non disclosure agreement, especially if working for the FBI or military. So we may never have access to that info, unless a criminal case goes to trial and the handler testifies. Does that make any sense, or am I explaining this really poorly?

It makes perfect sense, thank you so much, and it runs more or less in tandem with what I have been thinking ie unless and until this case goes to trial we are not going to get any definitive answers to questions about evidence LE may have in this case. Thing is while I perfectly understand why they withhold info and evidence while they are investigating and building a case it's still frustrating as heck because I just wanna KNOW LOL - as in I'm ready to call them and say "Aw come on, you can just tell me and I promise I won't tell anyone else - pleeeeeeeease!"

 

[carole]

:waitasec:


Also, has it been stated ANYWHERE that a second dog was brought in to confirm the findings of the original dog?

BBM

Yes, during the 17 hr. search on Oct. 19, there was a webcam showing the front of the house. Media reported that they were stopping the webcam at the request of LE while cadaver dogs were brought into the house. LE did not want the dogs and handlers shown to the public for security reasons.

I was watching when it happened.

 

[cluciano63]

Respectfully I have avidly followed cases for 25 years and I would not have a clue where to place a body in order to avoid detection. I might get lucky but it wouldn't have anything to do with following these cases.

The murderers of Kyron, Caylee, Haleigh, Hailey, Skelton boys, Schepp twins, Aaliyah Lunsford, Venus Stewart, Lindsey Baum and scores of others got lucky.

Despite me having followed these cases - and my version of following is a lot more in-depth than just watching news or headlines - I still didn't know about luminol, fingerprinting, blood spatter, spatial patterns of disposals, decomp rates and a whole lot more until I specifically researched those areas. There is a lot I can tell you about the psychology behind crime (which is where my interest lay) but little I could tell you about the criminal investigative techniques involved - dogs included. Everything I know about dogs is either from trials or specifically researching that information (much to my sister's dismay since she trains dogs!)

JMHO and FWIW

I wonder about how lucky people really are in disposing of bodies. Seems like everytime LE drains a lake or pond searching for someone or something, unrelated bodies are found. I get the feeling that almost any body of water holds someone's remains...JMO

 

[wvjules]

[/B]

BBM

Yes, during the 17 hr. search on Oct. 19, there was a webcam showing the front of the house. Media reported that they were stopping the webcam at the request of LE while cadaver dogs were brought into the house. LE did not want the dogs and handlers shown to the public for security reasons.

I was watching when it happened.

Ok so they brought in a second dog(s). Did it confirm the findings of the first dog?

 

[jacy]

I wonder about how lucky people really are in disposing of bodies. Seems like everytime LE drains a lake or pond searching for someone or something, unrelated bodies are found. I get the feeling that almost any body of water holds someone's remains...JMO

I think about this any time I read a case where someone 'disappeared into thin air' or 'vanished'. Because we know they didn't do any such thing. Someone disposed of them and when you look at the number of cases where this applies, it's mind boggling. I can barely hide the kids' Halloween candy from them. I don't understand how so many people have been lost and not found.

 

[NancyA]

Ok so they brought in a second dog(s). Did it confirm the findings of the first dog?

We don't know, LE isn't saying, we probably won't know until/if the case comes to trial...unless, and we can keep hoping, they find a LIVE Lisa somewhere that is.