Canadian forensic anthropologist Scott Fairgrieve joins Casey Anthony's defense

[seagull65]

Wow, just catching up on the hearings and was struck with how Baez asked the Canadian forensic anthropologist and cadaver dog expert pointedly about the possibility of a cadaver dog alerting on a TOOTH or blood shed by a living person. (The answer to both was yes, cadaver dogs would usually alert on both of these.)

Of course this took me right back to our discussions long ago about Caylee's unaccounted for tooth (upper left lateral incisor if I recall correctly, that was not with the rest of her remains) and how we discussed the possibility of it being in the car. I'm still looking for the old tooth thread, surely it got bumped up but maybe has fallen into the back pages again already.

What Baez said was "if a baby tooth was shed", of course Caylee was not of an age to shed a tooth naturally, we had always wondered about the possiblity of it having been knocked out in an accident in the car or otherwise. Wonder if we're going to hear more about the tooth at trial guys. You guys have no doubt been all over that, I'm still just catching up

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't think we've heard anything at all about the tooth except what you've mentioned Seagull.

As a Canadian, may I comment on Dr. Fairgrieve's testimony at the recent hearings?

Tsk Tsk.

 

[seagull65]

Dr. Fairgrieve (spelling? sorry, I was just watching the video) mentioned the same things I always thought about cadaver dogs, that if I were searching for someone I would certainly use one, but as far as using cadaver dogs to create some kind of "evidence" of where a body has supposedly been in the past.... I might use it as a tool but could not consider it scientific because there are no scientific controls and there's no way to know what visual/olfactory/auditory or other cues in a given location could possibly affect the dog, regardless how the people think they've trained the dog....plus obviously there are layers of human subjectivity involved in interpreting the dog's signals, and in choosing where to have the dog search in the first place, etc. I'm crazy about dogs though and certainly would employ them in a search if it were me. MOO

I couldn't believe Baez was having to have the officers draw pictures of how the dog searched the cars--- it wasn't filmed? And everyone was sent out when the dogs searched the back yard and the handler just told everyone what the dog had signaled?

Also, that was kind of baffling how YM couldn't recall anything at all about what the dog did when used on TL's vehicle, couldn't even say for sure if it signaled or not but he thought it didn't? Wha ???

 

[seagull65]

I don't think we've heard anything at all about the tooth except what you've mentioned Seagull.

As a Canadian, may I comment on Dr. Fairgrieve's testimony at the recent hearings?

Tsk Tsk.

oh, you're not a fan then LOL ok.

I liked him, but that's jmo

 

[seagull65]

all of Caylee's teeth were present at the remains scene except the one incisor, it just really jumped out at me when Baez asked that because of our past threads on the subject

well, I just started catching up on the hearings, thank heavens for youtube, I'm just going straight through them and had gotten as far as the cadaver dog stuff and couldn't believe it when I heard that question. Have a great night

 

[logicalgirl]

were you not around back then on those threads about the tooth?

oh you mean you didn't hear that part of the recent hearing, the question about cadaver dogs alerting on a tooth?

Yes, LOL - I meant in the last couple of weeks - we have seen nothing new.

And I think the Dog Handler had Yuri back off the from back of the car when the dog handler was there, like in the Anthony's back yard. No one witnessed the dog search because they did not want the dog distracted.

Baez tried to make a big deal about that, but he made so many gaffes throughout the dog handler testimony I think HHJP will let it in. Just IMO of course.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Wow, just catching up on the hearings and was struck with how Baez asked the Canadian forensic anthropologist and cadaver dog expert pointedly about the possibility of a cadaver dog alerting on a TOOTH or blood shed by a living person. (The answer to both was yes, cadaver dogs would usually alert on both of these.)

Of course this took me right back to our discussions long ago about Caylee's unaccounted for tooth (upper left lateral incisor if I recall correctly, that was not with the rest of her remains) and how we discussed the possibility of it being in the car. I'm still looking for the old tooth thread, surely it got bumped up but maybe has fallen into the back pages again already.

What Baez said was "if a baby tooth was shed", of course Caylee was not of an age to shed a tooth naturally, we had always wondered about the possiblity of it having been knocked out in an accident in the car or otherwise. Wonder if we're going to hear more about the tooth at trial guys. You guys have no doubt been all over that, I'm still just catching up

BBM I have always thought that Casey had knocked out Caylee's tooth while she was forcefully applying the duct tape to Caylee's face... I don't know if I would call that an "accident" though?

 

[K9Snoop]

Dr. Fairgrieve (spelling? sorry, I was just watching the video) mentioned the same things I always thought about cadaver dogs, that if I were searching for someone I would certainly use one, but as far as using cadaver dogs to create some kind of "evidence" of where a body has supposedly been in the past.... I might use it as a tool but could not consider it scientific because there are no scientific controls and there's no way to know what visual/olfactory/auditory or other cues in a given location could possibly affect the dog, regardless how the people think they've trained the dog....plus obviously there are layers of human subjectivity involved in interpreting the dog's signals, and in choosing where to have the dog search in the first place, etc. I'm crazy about dogs though and certainly would employ them in a search if it were me. MOO

I couldn't believe Baez was having to have the officers draw pictures of how the dog searched the cars--- it wasn't filmed? And everyone was sent out when the dogs searched the back yard and the handler just told everyone what the dog had signaled?

Also, that was kind of baffling how YM couldn't recall anything at all about what the dog did when used on TL's vehicle, couldn't even say for sure if it signaled or not but he thought it didn't? Wha ???

I see people quote this but curious as to what is meant. What "scientific controls" would you put in place? What would you like to see? I'm not being snarky but genuinely want to know because people say this but I can't get a definative answer on what they expect.

I won't speak for all cadaver dog handlers but I would want 1-3 other people present to see what the dog does as independent witnesses. What I would not want is a whole gaggle there that could 'push' or prevent the dog from effectively searching. IMHO if your dog is distracted by having a few bystanders present then you are not working enough on your distraction training. I would never want to do a search where I was the only witness to the dog's actions. That said whether or not you can accomodate extra people depends on the size area to be searched cause those people have to stand somewhere and they take up space.
As far as YM's not commenting on the dog's actions, if he is like other LE they've been schooled that only the dog handler reports on what their dog did. Most laymen can't 'read' a dog - body language changes - like the handler can but they can say "the dog sat here" or "the dog scratched there". But its up to the dog handler to answer specific questions on their dog and what the dog did. This is because I would not want someone who does not know my dog or how my dog is trained answering those questions and getting them wrong because then I have to correct it and/or do damage control because JB will play up both versions and, in this situation, confusion is the name of the game. Get the jury confused and they won't know which is accurate.
In other words, if I painted a picture, you probably won't know HOW I painted that picture. All you know is the picture got painted but if you answer questions on how I painted it, you would probably get most of them wrong that I, as the painter, would then have to spend alot of time correcting.
I think the underlying mission of JB is if you can't dazzle them with brilliance - then baffle them with bulls--t.

 

[LambChop]

Both searches in the backyard were "double-blind" searches. Never the dog or the handler knew where the areas were. Both dogs hit on the same spot only proving that a body may have been there or something transferred there after coming in contact with decomposition.

The dog's hit was confirmed by the handler because he claims what he smelled in the trunk, smelled of decomposition. JB had to push him a little farther and the police officer admitted to having smelled decomp. hundreds of times. So he is very credible. jmo

 

[LambChop]

There was a rumor that Caylee may have lost a tooth because there was a list from JB for things to get for Caylee's DNA and tooth was on the list. We later found out it was for a toothbrush. That was the "zip-it" deposition. jmo

 

[CarolinaMoon]

One thing I recall from Fairgrieve's testimony was that the search was invalid because there was no body in the car.

It seems to me that, upon examination of the trunk and tests, adipocere was discovered. That "grave wax" only comes from decompositional events. Something was dead and decaying in that trunk. Human reaction to the odor was a dead body.

I've smelled human decomp and have to avoid thinking about it because every time it is mentioned, it comes back to my nose and is all I smell.

For me, that's a good enough link that there was a body in that car and it was poor Angel Caylee's.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I didn't see LDB questioning Dr. Fairgrieve live, I just watched it yesterday on tape for the first time. And I was shocked!

First JB makes a remark about how he can't help it if LDB doesn't do her homework in regards to the witnesses. Then LDB gets her turn at questioning this Dr. Fairgreive and she cleans his clock!!

I don't know how a jury is instructed to see "dog" evidence but I believe that this is just another PIECE of evidence to be taken into consideration. Charges certainly wouldn't be brought against an individual with only "dog signals" as evidence. That being said I do think that it could be beneficial for a jury to see video of the dog/handler searching a particular crime scene when possible.Taping a search could help to eliminate worry of handler bias or handler prompting. I think video of this kind of search would only make this evidence stronger if a signal were given, and I think that it would also ensure that the handler is doing his absolute best to be an impartial instrument. I don't believe "dog" evidence should be eliminated just because it wasn't taped though.

In KC's case, I don't know how the DT could even hope to get this evidence thrown out when the smell of death is in the car and testified as being such by several who have the veracity to say so, and a stain of decomp is on the floor carpet. That seems to be evidence for the dog as a "true signal" in my mind. ?? Right?

:cow:

 

[marspiter]

oh, you're not a fan then LOL ok.

I liked him, but that's jmo

Personally I felt most of the Frye Hearings were a complete disaster for the defense. It's not good when the Judge has to keep reminding them what a Frye hearing is but that's a slightly different topic.

This doctors testimony in the hearings wasn't exactly a win for the defense. Basically what it boils down to is the testimony of the handlers with what 20k plus hours of training for one of them. Along with documented training on the dogs versus an "expert" who's opinion is based on materials he read from the internet, and briefly watched a couple of dogs during training.

In working with a volunteer fire department I've seen dogs in action on searches and the like, and I'm also very proficient at finding information on the net. However in no way would I ever consider my knowledge to be as good as to give an expert opinion on the capabilities of these dogs as a handler, let alone one with 20k hours plus of training.

If anything I would say this defense "expert" being called an expert in front of a jury would be rather misleading. He may be an expert in a certain field of science but in terms of giving an "expert" opinion on cadaver dogs, and the science of gases associated with decomposition. Well the good doctor is as much an expert as anyone here. In fact I would say we have some posters here that would qualify as experts on this issue before the good doctor would.

 

[LambChop]

Personally I felt most of the Frye Hearings were a complete disaster for the defense. It's not good when the Judge has to keep reminding them what a Frye hearing is but that's a slightly different topic.

This doctors testimony in the hearings wasn't exactly a win for the defense. Basically what it boils down to is the testimony of the handlers with what 20k plus hours of training for one of them. Along with documented training on the dogs versus an "expert" who's opinion is based on materials he read from the internet, and briefly watched a couple of dogs during training.

In working with a volunteer fire department I've seen dogs in action on searches and the like, and I'm also very proficient at finding information on the net. However in no way would I ever consider my knowledge to be as good as to give an expert opinion on the capabilities of these dogs as a handler, let alone one with 20k hours plus of training.

If anything I would say this defense "expert" being called an expert in front of a jury would be rather misleading. He may be an expert in a certain field of science but in terms of giving an "expert" opinion on cadaver dogs, and the science of gases associated with a decomposition. Well the good doctor is as much an expert as anyone here. In fact I would say we have some posters here that would qualify as experts on this issue before the good doctor would.

If I'm not mistaken wasn't the plan of defense to just use the good Dr. for the Frye hearing only....or, was this someone else? I believe Dr. Fairgrieve was the only defense expert to testify.

And the Dr. was pretty much correct when he claims if there is no body there, there is no proof it was an actual body. Which we all agree is true. The dog's alert is the dog's opinion. But, along comes Dr. Vass who very elequently explains that you don't need to see a skunk to know there a skunk in the area, the smell is quite unique and unmistakable, and so it is with decomposition....knocking him back two feet when he opened the canister. Don't you just love it????

 

[marspiter]

If I'm not mistaken wasn't the plan of defense to just use the good Dr. for the Frye hearing only....or, was this someone else? I believe Dr. Fairgrieve was the only defense expert to testify.

bbm

Who knows what the plan is with this bunch of unusual people. JB from what was said at the hearing even signed an agreement with the SA not to bring in certain things as part of the whole sanctions fiasco and apparently broke that agreement from what was said during the hearing.

I suppose the plan was to get the evidence excluded so they wouldn't have to use him at trial, but given how badly the Frye hearing went for the defense I would fully expect the dog evidence to come in, and if it does I would expect the defense to use something/anything (no matter how ridiculous) to try and combat it.

 

[Oakley]

So is the DT saying the dogs hit in the backyard because of a single tooth of Caylee's that was missing? Well if so,that makes perfect sense. So it was a single tooth of Caylee's that Cindy and George were searching for in the back yard when they looked under the playhouse and dug up the yard. I get it now.

 

[LambChop]

So is the DT saying the dogs hit in the backyard because of a single tooth of Caylee's that was missing? Well if so,that makes perfect sense. So it was a single tooth of Caylee's that Cindy and George were searching for in the back yard when they looked under the playhouse and dug up the yard. I get it now.

There's no tooth. No truth to the tooth. lol The dogs were not looking for a tooth. It was mentioned by JB because sometimes dogs hit on teeth. Maybe he was suggesting that KC at one time lost a tooth in the backyard. Not sure where he was going with that. jmo

 

[LancelotLink]

So is the DT saying the dogs hit in the backyard because of a single tooth of Caylee's that was missing? Well if so,that makes perfect sense. So it was a single tooth of Caylee's that Cindy and George were searching for in the back yard when they looked under the playhouse and dug up the yard. I get it now.

:floorlaugh:

Calling all cars, be on the lookout for a suspect calling herself the tooth fairy...:floorlaugh:
Could this be why Casey was needing a shovel? She wanted to plant the tooth with her shamrock lanyard in hopes it would sprout an Irish kid?

 

[K9Snoop]

One thing I recall from Fairgrieve's testimony was that the search was invalid because there was no body in the car.

A lame example but there are some that believe it. But that's like smelling popcorn in the hall, tracking it down to the kitchen, opening the door to the microwave getting a wave of fresh popcorn smell rolling over you and then declaring that the popcorn never existed because there was none in the microwave when you opened the door.

 

[LambChop]

bbm

Who knows what the plan is with this bunch of unusual people. JB from what was said at the hearing even signed an agreement with the SA not to bring in certain things as part of the whole sanctions fiasco and apparently broke that agreement from what was said during the hearing.

I suppose the plan was to get the evidence excluded so they wouldn't have to use him at trial, but given how badly the Frye hearing went for the defense I would fully expect the dog evidence to come in, and if it does I would expect the defense to use something/anything (no matter how ridiculous) to try and combat it.

I always thought it had to do with JB not giving SA enough time to get the information they needed and then HHJP stated the instrument itself was not a Frye issues, only the way the doctor was reading them. JB kept saying bench notes.