Dan Rassier: Former POI **Wrongly accused**

[Cappuccino]

People are upset that Heinrich went on his merry way. Here there are cadaver hits and blood splatter and remarks. Should those have all been ignored?

No, the suspected blood spatter should have been tested with a blood specific chemical like TMB to check it actually was blood. Maybe that was done, I don't know, but I'm not seeing any confirmation of it so I have to skeptical that it even was blood splatter.

 

[Arnie M]

What about the blood spatter on the different locations? The reasons that LE thought that something had happened on this property. Should they have ignored it all?

Actually my opinion was not about what police did ..... it was how some folks put too much emphasis on a few blood spots or dog responses .... it does not mean murder .... most likely a kid had a nosebleed or somebody cut themselves.

 

[Sasquatch321]

Actually my opinion was not about what police did ..... it was how some folks put too much emphasis on a few blood spots or dog responses .... it does not mean murder .... most likely a kid had a nosebleed or somebody cut themselves.

Right it is easy to say this now. But before we were constantly reminded they only hit on remains.

We never knew there were multiple hits everywhere, we knew of possibly one. So back then that held alot of weight not knowing what for sure it was.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Yes. And that's ALL they do. If the investigators look and find nothing, that's that, they don't arrest people on the strength of a dog alert. And yet there's posters here who will quote a dog alert as if it means something on its own, it means nothing unless the follow up search found evidence.

Ah...but there was 'evidence'. There was an umbrella stand, a chaise lounge and a cedar chest that is documented as 'smelling funny' by his own mother. Perhaps it isn't so much that the dogs are wrong but that the humans around the dogs don't understand or are incapable of correctly following through.

These particular dogs have a lengthy resume, especially the one dog on NOT alerting to non-human remains.

There was something there, we just don't know how to test for it, or the testing has fallen through the cracks.

 

[IBsleuthin]

it's not just posters here. The warrant clearly gives the credentials of both dogs including how they, in a nutshell, never alerted to any none-human cadaver scents - as in, walking straight by a dead cat and not even hinting in that direction. Both dogs separately alerted on the walls, lounge chair and chest.

thank you!!!!

 

[Cappuccino]

Ah...but there was 'evidence'. There was an umbrella stand, a chaise lounge and a cedar chest that is documented as 'smelling funny' by his own mother. Perhaps it isn't so much that the dogs are wrong but that the humans around the dogs don't understand or are incapable of correctly following through.

These particular dogs have a lengthy resume, especially the one dog on NOT alerting to non-human remains.

There was something there, we just don't know how to test for it, or the testing has fallen through the cracks.

But there wasn't "something" there. We know now that DR had nothing to do with it and Jacob was never there, alive or dead. So we have no need to attempt to explain what was going on in the brain of a dog, (or even two dogs), and can just accept that the justice system is correct to class dog alerts as presumptive tests with no probative value.

 

[human]

No one has answered the question of if they should have ignored all of this.

 

[Cappuccino]

No one has answered the question of if they should have ignored all of this.

I have. I answered that question at the top of the page.

 

[human]

But there wasn't "something" there. We know now that DR had nothing to do with it and Jacob was never there, alive or dead. So we have no need to attempt to explain what was going on in the brain of a dog, (or even two dogs), and can just accept that the justice system is correct to class dog alerts as presumptive tests with no probative value.

We know now. But what were they supposed to do at the time?

 

[human]

I have. I answered that question at the top of the page.

Must have missed it.

 

[Cappuccino]

We know now. But what were they supposed to do at the time?

Search. And when they found nothing, move on instead of searching the same premises over and over. And as for hypnotising the suspect, I'm not even going to start on that one.

 

[human]

But there wasn't "something" there. We know now that DR had nothing to do with it and Jacob was never there, alive or dead. So we have no need to attempt to explain what was going on in the brain of a dog, (or even two dogs), and can just accept that the justice system is correct to class dog alerts as presumptive tests with no probative value.

There was something there. As you know, blood analysis has advanced over the years. At one point they had to have a bunch of it to analyze. Now it is a tiny amount. Sometimes if they analyze, that's it. The sample cannot ve used again. And is it mitochondria they can do now that they could not do before?

The Sheriff said they needed advance. Just like fhe DNA on Jared's shirt could finally be analyzed. Scientists advance all of the time, fortunately.

 

[IBsleuthin]

But that's perfectly acceptable in a search warrant. That's exactly what cadaver dogs are for - to give investigators a clue where to look. Its like sniffer dogs at an airport, if a sniffer dog trained to scent drugs barks at you, that gives the officers a reason to search and question you, but if they find nothing they let you go. They don't arrest you anyway and expect your defence to explain the dog bark. Some posters here effectively do just that when they quote "but the cadaver dog alerted..." as a reason to suspect someone, despite the fact that the dog alert didn't lead to anything.

Here I would have to respectfully and completely disagree.

In your post here you are actually arguing with yourself and making my point. If you are at the airport and the sniffer dog alerts to you, as you have said here in your own words, "That gives the officers a REASON to search and question you." In other words you become SUSPECT to them. They then have to check it out. Just because you don't have drugs, or melons or contraband fruit on you at the time doesn't mean that you haven't been around some and that is why the dog alerted to you.

So extrapolating forward from that, if the police are looking in my shed and TWO dogs independently alert that makes me suspect for whatever they are alerting to. That's how that works.

Just because the dogs alerting didn't lead to anything doesn't mean the dogs were wrong. It just means that it wasn't possibly followed through to the end. To my knowledge the blood found there that day has never been DNA tested. I could be wrong.

 

[human]

Search. And when they found nothing, move on instead of searching the same premises over and over. And as for hypnotising the suspect, I'm not even going to start on that one.

That was a few years before. The children were hypnotized as well, I think, to see if they could come up with more info. What is surprising about that? Silly not to use that tool.

 

[Cappuccino]

There was something there. As you know, blood analysis has advanced over the years. At one point they had to have a bunch of it to analyze. Now it is a tiny amount. Sometimes if they analyze, that's it. The sample cannot ve used again. And is it mitochondria they can do now that they could not do before?

The Sheriff said they needed advance. Just like fhe DNA on Jared's shirt could finally be analyzed. Scientists advance all of the time, fortunately.

The rest of this post has nothing to do with the assertion in the first sentence. There was nothing on the Rassier farm which had any relevance to Jacob's abduction, we know that now for a fact. Are you suggesting that we should be looking around for other murders to accuse DR of committing?

 

[IBsleuthin]

But there wasn't "something" there. We know now that DR had nothing to do with it and Jacob was never there, alive or dead. So we have no need to attempt to explain what was going on in the brain of a dog, (or even two dogs), and can just accept that the justice system is correct to class dog alerts as presumptive tests with no probative value.

(BBM). You don't know that.

 

[Cappuccino]

That was a few years before. The children were hypnotized as well, I think, to see if they could come up with more info. What is surprising about that? Silly not to use that tool.

Its not a tool its junk science which has no place in any criminal investigation. It would be against the law in any European country.

 

[Cappuccino]

(BBM). You don't know that.

Yes I do, and so does everyone else. The crime has been solved.

 

[IBsleuthin]

The rest of this post has nothing to do with the assertion in the first sentence. There was nothing on the Rassier farm which had any relevance to Jacob's abduction, we know that now for a fact. Are you suggesting that we should be looking around for other murders to accuse DR of committing?

Sometimes these discussions are just like Silly Putty. When one person questions something and another person disagrees with it, the whole thing just starts getting pulled right out of shape.

So here we have this going on. There is a question and a meaningful discussion here about legitimate statements provided in a search warrant. This isn't information of conjecture, or some poster saying, ..."Oh wow I bet if they would have ever got some cadaver dogs in there they would have alerted."

There were two, not just one. Not just a neighbor dog that came in and got all fluffy and huffy in the corner of the shed, not a bird dog that got riled up over some sparrow nest in the eaves, this was TWO independent and unbelievably well trained cadaver dogs with impeccable resumes that came in that shed and separately alerted to these items. That's a fact.

What that MEANS??? We don't know. That's why we are discussing it. It's there, it's in the search warrant and we are trying to make sense of it.

To take a leap then with your silly putty and stretch it to the statement you have made here is wrong. I have not suggested that and I haven't seen the other posters suggest that.

(BBM)

 

[IBsleuthin]

Yes I do, and so does everyone else. The crime has been solved.

You don't know that, period. You cannot know if Jacob went there when he was alive. It was at the end of his driveway. He could have easily snuck through the grass and snooped around on that farm it happens all the time. You said he was never there, "Alive or dead."

You don't know that.

Things happen on people's farms all the time that they have no control or often no knowledge of. The proof here is the farm where Jacob was found. Those people are completely innocent yet a major crime happened there.

Evidence found on a farm then obviously does not immediately point to guilt. That's a pure fact.