Dan Rassier: Former POI **Wrongly accused**

[Sasquatch321]

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?

This why we should just lock this thread up. DR has had enough of this, it is unrepairable damage. Continuing this kind of discussion is prolonging it.

 

[Cappuccino]

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)

But we do know what the cadaver alerts mean - nothing. What this case should demonstrate to people is the sharp difference between a presumptive test and evidence with probative value. Instead, it seems some are still not internalising that there is a sharp difference and thinking that we still have to make sense out of dog alerts that we know led nowhere.

This prejudice seems so strong in some, I'm wondering if they should count dog alerts as something like polygraphs that should never be leaked to the press in case it prejudices a jury.

 

[Cappuccino]

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 don't know that.

Are you now telling me that cadaver dog alerts would be explained by the presence of Jacob wandering round the Rassier farm when he was alive? If not, I don't see the point of this piece of speculation at all.

 

[Cappuccino]

This why we should just lock this thread up. DR has had enough of this, it is unrepairable damage. Continuing this kind of discussion is prolonging it.

Agree completely.

 

[IBsleuthin]

Are you now telling me that cadaver dog alerts would be explained by the presence of Jacob wandering round the Rassier farm when he was alive? If not, I don't see the point of this piece of speculation at all.

From what I've gathered from your previous posts you really like sticking to the facts so in answer to your question here, WHERE did I ever indicate that was the case? I was very clear that you had said, "Alive or dead" and I said there is absolutely no way you could know if Jacob had been on that farm, snooping around. I did not once mention that an alive person would cause a cadaver dog to alert.

There is no point in this type of speculation because it's a hula hoop you are holding on to. Not me. I have not made one single connection or comment as you have implied above.

 

[IBsleuthin]

But we do know what the cadaver alerts mean - nothing. What this case should demonstrate to people is the sharp difference between a presumptive test and evidence with probative value. Instead, it seems some are still not internalising that there is a sharp difference and thinking that we still have to make sense out of dog alerts that we know led nowhere.

This prejudice seems so strong in some, I'm wondering if they should count dog alerts as something like polygraphs that should never be leaked to the press in case it prejudices a jury.

(BBM) Again, you don't know that either. The cadaver dogs alerted, the cadaver dogs are unable to speak or sit down and type out a dissertation on what their alerts mean. And, as a matter of fact and public record, the alerts DID lead to something. They lead to three particular items and blood splatter on the wall. Now, just because that cannot be connected to JW or anything else does not mean that the cadaver alerts meant nothing.

We simply don't know what that means. There is obviously something there but it could be 40 years old! We simply don't know.

 

[Cappuccino]

From what I've gathered from your previous posts you really like sticking to the facts so in answer to your question here, WHERE did I ever indicate that was the case? I was very clear that you had said, "Alive or dead" and I said there is absolutely no way you could know if Jacob had been on that farm, snooping around. I did not once mention that an alive person would cause a cadaver dog to alert.

There is no point in this type of speculation because it's a hula hoop you are holding on to. Not me. I have not made one single connection or comment as you have implied above.

I don't see the point of speculating that Jacob may have explored the Rassier farm when he was alive. The crime has now been solved, we know DR didn't do it, and we know the Rassier farm wasn't the crime scene. Hence we should also know for future reference not to get hung up on dog alerts and talk of blood spatter that may or may not mean anything when science advances.

This thread should really be closed at this point because other than people who suspected DR apologising to him, there's nothing more to be said about DR.

 

[RANCH]

I think far too much faith is placed in cadaver dogs. In one case on the Channel Islands they alerted to a piece of coconut shell, sparking off a media scrum reporting that a child's skull had been found. Dogs are not infallible no matter how much training they have.

I actually have more faith in the dogs than I do their human handlers. Some may inadvertently "cue" the dogs causing a false alert. Some may even lie about an alert. JMO.

 

[Cappuccino]

(BBM) Again, you don't know that either. The cadaver dogs alerted, the cadaver dogs are unable to speak or sit down and type out a dissertation on what their alerts mean. And, as a matter of fact and public record, the alerts DID lead to something. They lead to three particular items and blood splatter on the wall. Now, just because that cannot be connected to JW or anything else does not mean that the cadaver alerts meant nothing.

We simply don't know what that means. There is obviously something there but it could be 40 years old! We simply don't know.

You mean the dog alerts led to three irrelevant items and something that may or may not have been blood spatter on the wall. Cadaver dogs didn't further this case at all, in fact people taking them too seriously led them down the wrong track.

 

[Cappuccino]

I actually have more faith in the dogs than I do their human handlers. Some may inadvertently "cue" the dogs causing a false alert. Some may even lie about an alert. JMO.

I suspect that's the number one reason for inaccurate dog alerts.

 

[IBsleuthin]

This why we should just lock this thread up. DR has had enough of this, it is unrepairable damage. Continuing this kind of discussion is prolonging it.

I completely disagree. There are very valuable lessons to be learned from all of this to hopefully prevent parts of this from happening in the future. These can be uncomfortable discussions to have but they must be had.

We cannot allow an innocent man to be badgered for 26 solid years. That is simply wrong. There should be changes in the laws governing searches, I am not a specialist in those areas and couldn't begin to say how that should be undertaken. This case though, should be the catalyst for those changes.

26 years of this is ridiculous.

However, within that whole discussion we cannot gloss over the facts. The facts are that there were some unusual things seemingly relevant to this case that showed up on Rassier's farm. Those facts are critical in the discussion of how to change searches in the future to ensure that;

1). Innocent people and lives are not ruined in the process of finding the guilty.

2). The guilty are found as quickly as possible.

 

[IBsleuthin]

I actually have more faith in the dogs than I do their human handlers. Some may inadvertently "cue" the dogs causing a false alert. Some may even lie about an alert. JMO.

Thank you, I was just going to post that. Those dogs alerted and I have faith in them both. Exactly what that means we may never know. Actually I will say we 'will' never know.

 

[RANCH]

But we do know what the cadaver alerts mean - nothing. What this case should demonstrate to people is the sharp difference between a presumptive test and evidence with probative value. Instead, it seems some are still not internalising that there is a sharp difference and thinking that we still have to make sense out of dog alerts that we know led nowhere.

This prejudice seems so strong in some, I'm wondering if they should count dog alerts as something like polygraphs that should never be leaked to the press in case it prejudices a jury.

I think that HRD dog alerts are good for getting a search warrant to look for actual evidence. That happened in this case. Obviously LE didn't find any evidence showing that Dan Rassier killed Jacob because there wasn't any there to find.

Some people feel that these dog alerts are evidence that a missing person has died at the location of the alert. Look at the Madeliene McCann and Lisa Irwin cases. This case is proof that the alerts don't mean that at all.

JMO

 

[neesaki]

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.

Not to mention, not just anyone can be hypnotized. I'm always surprised when people can.

 

[Cappuccino]

I think that HRD dog alerts are good for getting a search warrant to look for actual evidence. That happened in this case. Obviously LE didn't find any evidence showing that Dan Rassier killed Jacob because there wasn't any there to find.

Some people feel that these dog alerts are evidence that a missing person has died at the location of the alert. Look at the Madeliene McCann and Lisa Irwin cases. This case is proof that the alerts don't mean that at all.

JMO

Exactly my point. Its even more ridiculous in the McCann case because the same cadaver dog that alerted there is the one that alerted to a coconut shell in the Channel Islands. At least the dogs here had a previously good record.

 

[neesaki]

I actually have more faith in the dogs than I do their human handlers. Some may inadvertently "cue" the dogs causing a false alert. Some may even lie about an alert. JMO.

That's exactly what I've been thinking.

 

[RANCH]

I suspect that's the number one reason for inaccurate dog alerts.

I'm sure that it happens. How much is hard to say. I heard drug dogs being called "walking search warrants." There have been studies showing them alerting to every car checked regardless if drugs were present or not. JMO

 

[IBsleuthin]

I don't see the point of speculating that Jacob may have explored the Rassier farm when he was alive. The crime has now been solved, we know DR didn't do it, and we know the Rassier farm wasn't the crime scene. Hence we should also know for future reference not to get hung up on dog alerts and talk of blood spatter that may or may not mean anything when science advances.

This thread should really be closed at this point because other than people who suspected DR apologising to him, there's nothing more to be said about DR.

1). I wasn't speculating. I was responding to a post you made declaring that Jacob could not have ever been on that farm alive. You don't know that, period. Unless you have some intimate knowledge of this, then you don't know if he was ever there. That's not speculation that is a response.

2). I agree, the crime has been solved.

3). A frank and open discussion about dog alerts and blood splatter is always relevant as it pertains to going forward in handling investigating future crimes. That's how science advances. If it weren't so, then we would be using lie detection, hypnosis, crystals and Ouiji boards in the courtroom.

 

[IBsleuthin]

I think that HRD dog alerts are good for getting a search warrant to look for actual evidence. That happened in this case. Obviously LE didn't find any evidence showing that Dan Rassier killed Jacob because there wasn't any there to find.

Some people feel that these dog alerts are evidence that a missing person has died at the location of the alert. Look at the Madeliene McCann and Lisa Irwin cases. This case is proof that the alerts don't mean that at all.

JMO

Exactly. I've posted this several times. The cadaver dogs alerting we just don't know what it means. Very clearly. As another poster wrote up stream, that cedar chest could have been used years ago as a viewing casket for a small child. We will never know.

 

[Cappuccino]

Exactly. I've posted this several times. The cadaver dogs alerting we just don't know what it means. Very clearly. As another poster wrote up stream, that cedar chest could have been used years ago as a viewing casket for a small child. We will never know.

We do know that it didn't have any bearing on this case. In other words, we might not know what it does mean but we know what it DOESN'T mean. That's something to bear in mind when you read other cases on here and see people being accused on the grounds of a cadaver dog alert on their premises.