GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #10

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Oriah! I don't believe we were told how the dog alerted in this case.. Only that they alerted.. We have such very limited info other than that the dog alerted outside of Stelhens front door and then also alerted in his back bedroom and bathroom.. Nothing more specific.. And then that there were two other apts that the dog alerted to human remains.. One being the victim(where it's been said they thought the initial crime was committed) and the second and unrelated vacant downstairs apt that they also took the refridgerator that it has been theorized held the last part of the torso before it was disposed of..

There's not much to go on..hence my argument that one cannot claim that there was nkt a thorough job done when such little is even known..
 
Backwoods said:
Oriah, sounds like you have expertise to share? Great!

One thing -- some of the other posters may know for sure, but I don't, whether the dogs brought in for the first search were S&R dogs also trained in HRD work or dogs trained exclusively for HRD.
Click to expand...

Okay.
So they were possibly cross-trained dogs that were initially brought in?
 
The remains were found fairly early on the day that the dogs were brought in (later), but our understanding is that a family friend in Atlanta arranged to have the dogs come -- so while they may have been HRD-exclusive, they also could have been combo dogs -- I guess just depending on what the family friend had access to.

ETA: It may have been the day after the remains were found that the first dogs came -- I am not sure. I believe there were two dog searches there at the first, fairly close together, with different dogs. Here is a link with a little info about one of the searches: http://www.macon.com/2011/06/30/1616531/body-found-mercer-law-giddings.html
 
SmoothOperator said:
Hi Oriah! I don't believe we were told how the dog alerted in this case.. Only that they alerted.. We have such very limited info other than that the dog alerted outside of Stelhens front door and then also alerted in his back bedroom and bathroom.. Nothing more specific.. And then that there were two other apts that the dog alerted to human remains.. One being the victim(where it's been said they thought the initial crime was committed) and the second and unrelated vacant downstairs apt that they also took the refridgerator that it has been theorized held the last part of the torso before it was disposed of..

There's not much to go on..hence my argument that one cannot claim that there was nkt a thorough job done when such little is even known..
Click to expand...

Ok. Hmmm.

Do we know if they trailed a dog on the different apartment owners scent?
 
Oriah said:
Ok. Hmmm.

Do we know if they trailed a dog on the different apartment owners scent?
Click to expand...

I personally don't know, have not heard that they did .... SmoothOperator is right in that we don't have a whole lot of the details. There are some video clips and photos, I think, that show the dogs briefly (and also some from a later search with different dogs, I believe).

Sorry we do not have too much to give you to go on!
 
No I believe they were strictly cadaver dogs
 
Ya'll, lets not forget about that dog possibly hitting on the trash can at the law school.
 
At the recent commitment hearing, the lead detective referred to these first dogs as HRD dogs, but he also said he was not present during the search and did not present himself as as expert on dog searches. If that helps any!
 
Backwoods said:
pearl, that was during a later search, right?
Click to expand...

I think it was that man that the family had come in at a later time. The one who searched the river (?) and the law school dumpster. Think his name might have been Golba or something like that. It is described in one of the articles.
 
Oriah, with what little we have to go on would it be unusual or would it be typical for the cadaver dogs/HRD dogs during their search to have alerted(and we don't know these specific dogs means of alerting but rather only that they did alert) on the area of the front door of an apt and them upon entering and searching a 2 bedroom apt that they alerted again in the very back bedroom and alerted once again in the very back bathroom?

Would that be odd or unusual?

My understanding of cadaver dogs is they are different than scent trailing dogs in that they do not follow a trail but rather alert on specific areas that human remains had come in direct contact with.. Meaning the body or body parts at one time were in that area of the front door as well as the remains at one point were also in contact with the specific area in the back bedroom and bathroom?.. Is this correct or am I misunderstanding?
 
pearl said:
I think it was that man that the family had come in at a later time. The one who searched the river (?) and the law school dumpster. Think his name might have been Golba or something like that. It is described in one of the articles.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's what I am remembering, too.
 
I have a general question. I am completely ignorant of this subject. I know some things have been posted here in the past that might answer my question, but I'm going to ask anyway (because I don't have time to research it).

Assuming for purposes of this question that the dogs were strictly HRD dogs, it is theoretically possible for:
(a) The dogs to alert in reaction to traces of decomp tracked into the apartments (for instance, by detectives)?
(b) Decomp odor to travel through air vents or via some other channel between rooms and cause an alert? I think I read somewhere in this thread that decomp is not airborne, but just wanted to make sure.
 
I think there is some misunderstanding about exactly how HRD dogs work and alert.. 3doglady I see now your concern is that they hit at the back of Stephen's apt? And that this would somehow not make sense or be questionable to a defense ATTY???

HRD dogs are not following a consistent, consecutive trail like mantrailing dogs do.. They alert on an actual spot that human remains came into direct contact with.. Someone upthread stated it best tho, a not pleasant thought to think of.. The remains or parts of remains were at one time set, laid, touched, etc this particular spot they alert on..

There is nothing unusual, odd, or questionable that occurred by the dogs having hit in his back bedroom and bathroom.. This is where he had the remains or part of the remains..

Dogs, of course, just as everything else in a case, are attempted to be called into question by the defense but there is nothing out of the ordinary or questionable that occurred with this dogs alerting on Stephens front door area, back bedroom and back bathroom..
 
SmoothOperator said:
I think there is some misunderstanding about exactly how HRD dogs work and alert.. 3doglady I see now your concern is that they hit at the back of Stephen's apt? And that this would somehow not make sense or be questionable to a defense ATTY???

HRD dogs are not following a consistent, consecutive trail like mantrailing dogs do.. They alert on an actual spot that human remains came into direct contact with.. Someone upthread stated it best tho, a not pleasant thought to think of.. The remains or parts of remains were at one time set, laid, touched, etc this particular spot they alert on..

There is nothing unusual, odd, or questionable that occurred by the dogs having hit in his back bedroom and bathroom.. This is where he had the remains or part of the remains..

Dogs, of course, just as everything else in a case, are attempted to be called into question by the defense but there is nothing out of the ordinary or questionable that occurred with this dogs alerting on Stephens front door area, back bedroom and back bathroom..
Click to expand...

Smooth, I should have clarified that. I wasn't saying dogs hitting in the back would be questionable to the DT. I was saying since the dog only hit in the back of the apt, the DT could say how does LE know that the dogs wouldn't have hit in the back of other apts too. If there was no smell at the front of the other apts the dogs would not have hit at the door, yet there could have been "hits" at the back. Does that make sense? I'm not saying I believe it, just saying it could be reasonable doubt on the dog hits. All goes back to the fact that no apt was searched that the dogs didn't hit.
 
pearl said:
I think it was that man that the family had come in at a later time. The one who searched the river (?) and the law school dumpster. Think his name might have been Golba or something like that. It is described in one of the articles.
Click to expand...

LG's family hired Fred Golba to search the landfill and other areas. He was not the handler for the dog that searched the apt initially.

http://cck9s.community.officelive.com/aboutus.aspx
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 2,811 (members: 196, guests: 2,615)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
2,615
Total visitors
2,811
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,744
Messages
18,099,063
Members
230,919
Latest member
jackojohnnie
Back
Top