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

[3doglady]

It is the evidence as a whole.. It is what brick of evidence by brick of evidence what is built.. A brick here and a single brick there nowhere near the vicinity of the other brick and maybe other small bricks of evidence found but none connect in any significant way, none of them are cohesive in what they brick by brick together build.. When this happens, is seen in a case well.. The evidence is not there to be build against that individual, whoever they may be.. It is when those bricks of evidence are found and cohesively fit with other bricks of evidence already in place and they all together begin to build and form into something significant.. The same analogy with a puzzle and the pieces of the puzzle continuing one by one as each new piece of evidence, piece of the puzzle fit into place the clearer the puzzle as a whole becomes..

It is ridiculous IMO to suggest that any of us who are truly innocent people, not engaging in criminal activity in their lifestyles AT ALL..(and I say at all because those who are choosing to live their lives in a risky lifestyle and around risky, illegal behaviors like drug use and activities.. Well those are not living such innocent lives.. They are at risk for being involved in an element of criminal activity by choosing to put themselves in risky lifestyle where one is much more prone to have involvement in criminal activity directly and indirectly)..

But for those of us who are truly living a normal, non criminal, non risky lifestyle.. It's IMO ludicrous to state that our innocent ways of life could somehow leave us ending up on deathrow like Stephen may soon find himself.. This is not realistic IMO.. As I stated it is not one single brick here or there that doesn't further lead to many more building blocks of brick stacking and forming into a solid structure.. So too similarly would be if we had a loved one murdered and our lives began to be looked at under the microscope.. If we were living innocent lives in no way living or participating in any way in the criminal or illegal elements then so too would our innocent actions and behaviors prove to lead anywhere or build brick by brick into a solid*Structure.. It wouldn't!!!!

Questionable googling around would be seen just for what it was.. Were you googling around due to following a case?? That is easily seen and discerned.. Were you googling particular disturbing aspects of murder, mutilation, disposal? Were you googling those because you visit and follow crime websites where this is discussed? That would easily be discerned.. Were you searching out some questions you had about child *advertiser censored* because of a recent case in the media? It's easy to discern whether you were or whether you are interested in child *advertiser censored* for your own viewing pleasure..

About a year ago a woman was mysteriously killed, a wife and mother of two highschool boys.. They thought it to be the husband but they really couldn't put any of the bricks of evidence together to form any type of significant structure.. And there was even found to be a slight criminal element there in his illegal betting and gambling.. There was tons of Internet *advertiser censored*, but so, too are there in many homes across America where there are 2 teenage males and an adult male that are sharing the internet.. But still nothing that could be built into anything of a structure, not even a cohesive foundation for that structure could be built from the building bricks here, a couple small bricks over there and a few stray bricks scattered around.. Nothing cohesive and nothing to build upon.. Thus moving the investigation scope further outward.. This is how an investigation works.. This is what the reality of a situation is when there is someone in our lives that becomes a victim of a violent crime, murder.. Our lives GO under the microscope and if you are living a risky lifestyle you better be prepared for that to be brought to the light of day, if you've got an Internet *advertiser censored* issue or addiction you better be prepared for it to be brought to the light of day.. Will those issues get you in trouble? Possibly, if they are illegal.. Will they cause you embarrassment? Absolutely.. Will they falsely paint you to be the murderer/perp even if your not? No, no, no!!!! This just isn't reality.. All of our habits, regular activities, and personal doings of our everyday lives will be seen for what they are.. If they are risky and somehow illegal that will be just as easy discerned as those whose activities and habits are not illegal but rather just something that some frown upon(example-*advertiser censored* habit) tho it may indeed be embarrassing, IT WILL NOT HOWEVER IN ANY WAY MAKE YOU THE PRIME SUSPECT CHARGED WITH MURDER!!

That's the truth of how it works in reality..

Your post reflects the way an investigation SHOULD be done, and hopefully will in this case. Patterson said himself that SM became a POI because of SM's media interview. Unfortunately there are cases that accusations and convictions are based solely on actions that make a person look guilty when they aren't. Ever hear of Cynthia Sommers? Her conviction was overturned because it was based on exactly that. The real reality is the system doesn't always work the way it should. Sometimes innocent people are convicted, sometimes killers walk free.

 

[3doglady]

Yes, during the Anthony trial, the FBI held some written reports as long as possible so the DT would have less time to prepare. Usually the law requires that the DT get discovery by a certain time but I've seen several cases where the FBI refused to release written reports.

I'm editing Patterson's answer in my earlier post. He didn't say no, he said "Not that I'm aware of"

Just wanted to clarify my post. Both sides use whatever tactics are available to them to prove their case. When the forensics reports are released to the public, we'll know why Patterson hesitated to answer.

 

[Wondergirl]

I don't see a cause for alarm. We don't know the context or the content of the witness's statements. We've heard enough to know there are other who could testify about McD's penchant for violent fantasy, yet only TM's statements were used to establish probable cause. That would tell us there is something in the content that stands out from the rest. It's quite possible TM related details to LE that match unique, undisclosed details of Lauren's murder. At any rate, it was strong enough that when combined with the other items presented in the warrant, the judge ruled the case be bound over.

You are right, Bessie.

I confess that I commented about being alarmed without fully reading the article, and now that I have, it seems clear that there are others to whom he commented to about a "perfect murder", and that there is a good reason why TM's statements are a component of the arrest warrant. :blushing:

 

[WhoaJo]

I think both may be true . I sure hope the first one is , and the second , I believe it is finally sinking in that the son they knew had a dark passenger that they never met , until now. I do feel sorry for them , and everything they have gone through with their daughter and now with SM. They really did deserve better .

Agent, the McD's may well deserve better.

However, I have to wonder - when I see the circumstances in which both of their children find themselves - where did their problems originate?

I'm leaning heavily toward environment.

 

[tut med]

I think the McD's are still in denial. Denial is powerful in these situations. After the child *advertiser censored* charges the attorney stated that they are sure he was innocent of those charges. Maybe a shadow of doubt entered the picture with the postings, I don't know. The extended family; however, I bet they are having their doubts.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Your post reflects the way an investigation SHOULD be done, and hopefully will in this case. Patterson said himself that SM became a POI because of SM's media interview. Unfortunately there are cases that accusations and convictions are based solely on actions that make a person look guilty when they aren't. Ever hear of Cynthia Sommers? Her conviction was overturned because it was based on exactly that. The real reality is the system doesn't always work the way it should. Sometimes innocent people are convicted, sometimes killers walk free.

It is not only the way an investigation should be done, it is the way the vast majority of investigations are done.. Of course, as with every other thing In this world and in this life there are not so good people in charge, or people who do not take their duty to uphold justice with the life and death seriousness that they should.. Nothing is perfect.. But fortunately the vast majority of cases are done ethically and result with the correct perp justice served upon..

So, in knowing that these cases are rare(and even more rare cases that have media attention as well as FBI/GBI involvement).. Those three additives make the chances of this case in particular being ran anything other than ethically and professionally is slim to none.. There has been nothing to show that it is not being done by the book and that there is no witch hunt going on.. FBI has been on the case since day 1 and if for some reason Burns were behaving in an unprofessional manner of conducting the investigation in an unfair or unprofessional manner the FBI would not stand by and allow it.. They wouldn't.. That's the truth..

So, its for those reasons that I do not believe this specific issue is relevant.. There is nothing that would indicate that anything unprofessional has taken place and to say there has is indicating FBI/GBI have been unprofessional in their duties.. I do not believe them to have run this investigation any other way but ethically and professionally..

I do realize that some have issue with what was stated or not stated by Patterson at the hearing(and even I personally believe that the DA has to be top notch in their questioning as well as testimony come trial time).. But what was or wasn't said in the hearing Friday is in no way an indicator either way.. There were only a teeny modicum of details that the DA wanted released at that hearing.. IMO this is part of what caused the odd exchange with Patterson.. Buford is sharp and smart and the DA knew that in his questions their answers would lead directly into revealing much detail, possibly even going into other areas.. Regardless the DA did not want those details public at this time.. Thus largely limiting what Patterson could safely say.. We do not know what the procedure for the dogs was.. There was more than just the Vic and defendants apt searched.. That bottom floor apt was in no way connected as far as anyo e could tell.. So there is something that led those dogs to search there.. We Do not yet know the procedure or method used with the dogs, therefor it is not an honest representation to say they failed to search other apts.. That bottom floor apt was "other apts" and it was searched so for that to already be deemed by some as a "mistake", error on the DA/LE part is not an accurate assessment..

As I said I agree that Patterson regardless of the odd position he was put In while on the stand of being careful as to what he revealed.. No matter IMO he still needs to be thoroughly versed and rehearsed on all things this case before it goes to trial.. His presentation needs to be top notch, thorough, and confident in the evidence.. IMO he feels and is all of those things but he is not accustomed to presenting it not only before a tiny Bibb Co. Courtroom but to literal thousands of people.. Some who nit pick his words to death and demeanor and speech patterns(and am NOT speaking of just here) so one can understand his having to overcome any of thise obstacles and for the sake of Lauren.. And for him to present his testimony to the absolute best of his ability..jmo, tho!!

One thing that I personally am confident in and know will be shown at the appropriate time and place before a jury of his peers In a court of law is that the evidence will show and tie Stephen to Lauren's murder by our justice system's standards and with no reasonable doubt to find him to be guilty.. Jmo..

 

[AgentFrankLundy]

Agent, the McD's may well deserve better.

However, I have to wonder - when I see the circumstances in which both of their children find themselves - where did their problems originate?

I'm leaning heavily toward environment.

No doubt environmental factors weigh in heavily here, and there is much dysfunction . I guess my point was that SMcD is not the product of some out of wedlock drug addicted prison mom ( e.g. Charles Manson).

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

No doubt environmental factors weigh in heavily here, and there is much dysfunction . I guess my point was that SMcD is not the product of some out of wedlock drug addicted prison mom ( e.g. Charles Manson).

"All happy families are alike. Each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." - Leo Tolstoy

 

[3doglady]

It is not only the way an investigation should be done, it is the way the vast majority of investigations are done.. Of course, as with every other thing In this world and in this life there are not so good people in charge, or people who do not take their duty to uphold justice with the life and death seriousness that they should.. Nothing is perfect.. But fortunately the vast majority of cases are done ethically and result with the correct perp justice served upon..

So, in knowing that these cases are rare(and even more rare cases that have media attention as well as FBI/GBI involvement).. Those three additives make the chances of this case in particular being ran anything other than ethically and professionally is slim to none.. There has been nothing to show that it is not being done by the book and that there is no witch hunt going on.. FBI has been on the case since day 1 and if for some reason Burns were behaving in an unprofessional manner of conducting the investigation in an unfair or unprofessional manner the FBI would not stand by and allow it.. They wouldn't.. That's the truth..

So, its for those reasons that I do not believe this specific issue is relevant.. There is nothing that would indicate that anything unprofessional has taken place and to say there has is indicating FBI/GBI have been unprofessional in their duties.. I do not believe them to have run this investigation any other way but ethically and professionally..

I do realize that some have issue with what was stated or not stated by Patterson at the hearing(and even I personally believe that the DA has to be top notch in their questioning as well as testimony come trial time).. But what was or wasn't said in the hearing Friday is in no way an indicator either way.. There were only a teeny modicum of details that the DA wanted released at that hearing.. IMO this is part of what caused the odd exchange with Patterson.. Buford is sharp and smart and the DA knew that in his questions their answers would lead directly into revealing much detail, possibly even going into other areas.. Regardless the DA did not want those details public at this time.. Thus largely limiting what Patterson could safely say.. We do not know what the procedure for the dogs was.. There was more than just the Vic and defendants apt searched.. That bottom floor apt was in no way connected as far as anyo e could tell.. So there is something that led those dogs to search there.. We Do not yet know the procedure or method used with the dogs, therefor it is not an honest representation to say they failed to search other apts.. That bottom floor apt was "other apts" and it was searched so for that to already be deemed by some as a "mistake", error on the DA/LE part is not an accurate assessment..

I snipped your post for space. BBI Buford specifically asked if apts other than those 3 were searched and Patterson said no. None of the friends or other residents apts were searched according to Patterson's testimony. I think that's an honest representation unless you are saying Patterson lied on the stand. The problem I see is that all 3 apts had hits so there was no "control". No one knows how accurate the dogs were because they hit everywhere they went. If the dogs had searched a few of the friends apts that were also in LG's apt and did not hit that would give validity to the hits in SM's apt.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

It is not only the way an investigation should be done, it is the way the vast majority of investigations are done.. Of course, as with every other thing In this world and in this life there are not so good people in charge, or people who do not take their duty to uphold justice with the life and death seriousness that they should.. Nothing is perfect.. But fortunately the vast majority of cases are done ethically and result with the correct perp justice served upon..

So, in knowing that these cases are rare(and even more rare cases that have media attention as well as FBI/GBI involvement).. Those three additives make the chances of this case in particular being ran anything other than ethically and professionally is slim to none.. There has been nothing to show that it is not being done by the book and that there is no witch hunt going on.. FBI has been on the case since day 1 and if for some reason Burns were behaving in an unprofessional manner of conducting the investigation in an unfair or unprofessional manner the FBI would not stand by and allow it.. They wouldn't.. That's the truth..

So, its for those reasons that I do not believe this specific issue is relevant.. There is nothing that would indicate that anything unprofessional has taken place and to say there has is indicating FBI/GBI have been unprofessional in their duties.. I do not believe them to have run this investigation any other way but ethically and professionally..

I do realize that some have issue with what was stated or not stated by Patterson at the hearing(and even I personally believe that the DA has to be top notch in their questioning as well as testimony come trial time).. But what was or wasn't said in the hearing Friday is in no way an indicator either way.. There were only a teeny modicum of details that the DA wanted released at that hearing.. IMO this is part of what caused the odd exchange with Patterson.. Buford is sharp and smart and the DA knew that in his questions their answers would lead directly into revealing much detail, possibly even going into other areas.. Regardless the DA did not want those details public at this time.. Thus largely limiting what Patterson could safely say.. We do not know what the procedure for the dogs was.. There was more than just the Vic and defendants apt searched.. That bottom floor apt was in no way connected as far as anyo e could tell.. So there is something that led those dogs to search there.. We Do not yet know the procedure or method used with the dogs, therefor it is not an honest representation to say they failed to search other apts.. That bottom floor apt was "other apts" and it was searched so for that to already be deemed by some as a "mistake", error on the DA/LE part is not an accurate assessment..

As I said I agree that Patterson regardless of the odd position he was put In while on the stand of being careful as to what he revealed.. No matter IMO he still needs to be thoroughly versed and rehearsed on all things this case before it goes to trial.. His presentation needs to be top notch, thorough, and confident in the evidence.. IMO he feels and is all of those things but he is not accustomed to presenting it not only before a tiny Bibb Co. Courtroom but to literal thousands of people.. Some who nit pick his words to death and demeanor and speech patterns(and am NOT speaking of just here) so one can understand his having to overcome any of thise obstacles and for the sake of Lauren.. And for him to present his testimony to the absolute best of his ability..jmo, tho!!

One thing that I personally am confident in and know will be shown at the appropriate time and place before a jury of his peers In a court of law is that the evidence will show and tie Stephen to Lauren's murder by our justice system's standards and with no reasonable doubt to find him to be guilty.. Jmo..

I am not an "insider" to law enforcement or the criminal justice system, so my opinion is just that - an opinion based on what I've seen of people's behavior in other situations (eg., other professions, daily life). My thought is that "justice" (or the system) can go wrong not only because of people being asses (eg., LE who abuse their authority) or because of fraud (eg., "doctoring" evidence) but also because of people being honestly, sincerely wrong (eg., maybe the science behind the evidence isn't fully understood).

Errr...sorry for the massively long sentence. And I didn't mean that any of those things are going wrong in this particular case...they're just examples.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

I snipped your post for space. BBI Buford specifically asked if apts other than those 3 were searched and Patterson said no. None of the friends or other residents apts were searched according to Patterson's testimony. I think that's an honest representation unless you are saying Patterson lied on the stand. The problem I see is that all 3 apts had hits so there was no "control". No one knows how accurate the dogs were because they hit everywhere they went. If the dogs had searched a few of the friends apts that were also in LG's apt and did not hit that would give validity to the hits in SM's apt.

Could someone please briefly explain to me how a "session" with cadaver dogs goes?

Eg., a "session" (as I'm using the word) with SAR dogs would go...present the scent article and let the dog guide the handler to the person or to the place where his or her scent disappears.

I'm asking because SAR dogs, I think, won't go where the person's scent hasn't been, so in that sense there isn't a "control." I'm more familiar with SAR dogs than with cadaver dogs, because 2 of my parents' friends are handlers for SAR bloodhounds. (Click on the link! They are beautiful dogs! )

 

[ehmadpotter]

Quoted from WhoaJo: "Agent, the McD's may well deserve better.

However, I have to wonder - when I see the circumstances in which both of their children find themselves - where did their problems originate?

I'm leaning heavily toward environment. "



Whoajo, all I can say is Amen, Amen, and Amen! I won't go so far as to say the parents deserve this, as NO one does, but short of an hereditary neorological disorder or brain damage, VERY few are BORN a sociopath or pychopath or "evil", but mostly are made that way, usually insidiously and untentionally, and often by good, Christain "well meaning parents." I use the parenthetical expression "evil", because I believe VERY few people are truly "evil" even if their actions are. And if Stepfen IS indeed guilty, his actions were truly "evil", but I don't think HE is entirely, unequivacally "evil." Few things in this life are that black and/or white. However, I do question how much his upbringing contributed to his being a self-proclaimed "misanthrope", and obviously a "misogynist" as well. I suspect QUITE a lot.

 

[Knox]

I snipped your post for space. BBI Buford specifically asked if apts other than those 3 were searched and Patterson said no. None of the friends or other residents apts were searched according to Patterson's testimony. I think that's an honest representation unless you are saying Patterson lied on the stand. The problem I see is that all 3 apts had hits so there was no "control". No one knows how accurate the dogs were because they hit everywhere they went. If the dogs had searched a few of the friends apts that were also in LG's apt and did not hit that would give validity to the hits in SM's apt.

Good thoughts in this post 3doglady. I know in other case threads I have posted in, the results from canine "hits" are sometimes called into question and become a hotly debated topic.

I don't remember know much about controls. So in other words, every time a search for human remains is performed, there is a control scenario involved?

The dogs didn't hit everywhere. IIRC, the dogs were also taken throughout the complex which I thought meant; up to the doors of the remaining apartments and parking lot. I also think if the scent would have been inside one of the other apartments, the dog would have sounded the alarm at the door. I may be wrong, but in observing my own untrained dogs, a door or enclosed space doesn't keep their little nose from working when something interesting is there.

In addition, the dogs were taken all around the area surrounding BH, the river and I believe the landfill?

 

[SmoothOperator]

My question about the searching was that given what little, discombobulated information about the dog searches was that we do not know the procedure that was used to determine what apts were searched.. Yes, the victim and defendants apt were searched but there was "other apts" searched as well.. The downstairs apt.. It by all appearances totally unrelated and on a different floor than the victim and the defendants.. That means something to me.. It's being overlooked as to why that apt was chosen out all the many other empty apts to be searched by the dogs.. And my question is might that reason indeed have something to do with the method used of the dogs searching? IMO yes, it may indeed be due to the procedure or method used in the dogs searching as to why the dogs went Into that specific apt..

Remember we have Patterson giving us this very limited info and just as he tells Bufors at one point, "he is not who took the dogs into the apts that were searched.".. This is not the dog handler who knows exactly what procedures and why the bottom floor apt was searched.. He is not available, nor is his experience and knowledge available to us at this time to let us know the true and accurate procedures that were used and the where and the why the particular apts were searched, especially in questioning the unrelated bottom floor apt.. This IMO is of much importance and without this complete and accurate information one cannot IMO make an honest assessment of the entire situation..

Patterson did not take the dogs on the search, he says so himself, nor is Patterson trained in the methods and procedures of the cadaver search dogs.. IMO there very likely was a control done by the cadaver dog and his handler before they even began to "officially" search BH apts.. We do not know.. Patterson was not the handler conducting the search using the cadaver dogs.. Nor Do we know the method this handler used with the cadaver dogs.. Again, I bring up the "other apts" that many have a problem with having not been searched at BH, and I say that the totally unrelated, downstairs apt is one of the "other apts" and it was searched.. What led to it being Searched? IMO it could be the method used with dogs is what led to it being searched.. Meaning that as the handler walked the cadaver dog thru the BH property that it easily could have been what alerted to that bottom apt being searched.. The dog alerted, just as the dog did at Stephen McDaniels front door that there had been human remains come in contact with that specific area.. Thus causing reason for the bottom floor apt to be further searched with the cadaver dog.. This is exactly what I believe is likely to have occurred and is why and how the bottom Apt became known to somehow have been tied into the crime..

Patterson only states that the dogs DID NOT ENTER any of the other apts in the complex besides those three that were found to be positive hits for human remains.. IMO I believe the reason why no others were entered was because the dogs DID NOT ALERT AT THE FRONT DOOR OF ANY OF THE *OTHER 13 apts.. I believe the dogs were walked thru the complex and that the apts to which they alerted were positive to have had human remains contact with them.. They then entered and continued a search of the entire inner apt..

This is why I feel as tho there is no way to make such judgement calls as to whether or not LE were negligent in their investigation, specifically speaking of their failing to do a thorough search with the cadaver dogs at the BH apt complex.. With what little, discombobulated information that we have from the hearing we do not have vital of importance pieces of info about that cadaver dog search that IMO likely disproves any of the negligent claims with their actually having been a control done by the handler, as well as a method used that the dogs led to where they searched for the cadaver scent, further explaining that exactly how the dog hit on Stephen's front door of his apt so, too did *the dog hit on the bottom floor front door of that apt.. and most importantly that the dogs did NOT hit on any other of the 13 doors of the BH apts..

And until we have that information that is accurate and comes from the person trained to search and that actually did participate as the handler of this specific search then until that time WE DO NOT HAVE ANY TYPE WHATSOEVER OF AN HONEST REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF THE CADAVER DOG SEARCH ENTAILED..

Hope that makes it a little clearer what I am attempting to explain as to why I feel very differently about what possibly was a more accurate assessment of what took place..

 

[Knox]

WJ Said;
"Agent, the McD's may well deserve better.

However, I have to wonder - when I see the circumstances in which both of their children find themselves - where did their problems originate?

I'm leaning heavily toward environment. "

ehmadpotter said:
Whoajo, all I can say is Amen, Amen, and Amen! I won't go so far as to say the parents deserve this, as NO one does, but short of an hereditary neorological disorder or brain damage, VERY few are BORN a sociopath or pychopath or "evil", but mostly are made that way, usually insidiously and untentionally, and often by good, Christain "well meaning parents." I use the parenthetical expression "evil", because I believe VERY few people are truly "evil" even if their actions are. And if Stepfen IS indeed guilty, his actions were truly "evil", but I don't think HE is entirely, unequivacally "evil." Few things in this life are that black and/or white. However, I do question how much his upbringing contributed to his being a self-proclaimed "misanthrope", and obviously a "misogynist" as well. I suspect QUITE a lot.

:goodpost: Both of you!

 

[3doglady]

Good thoughts in this post 3doglady. I know in other case threads I have posted in, the results from canine "hits" are sometimes called into question and become a hotly debated topic.

I don't remember know much about controls. So in other words, every time a search for human remains is performed, there is a control scenario involved?

The dogs didn't hit everywhere. IIRC, the dogs were also taken throughout the complex which I thought meant; up to the doors of the remaining apartments and parking lot. I also think if the scent would have been inside one of the other apartments, the dog would have sounded the alarm at the door. I may be wrong, but in observing my own untrained dogs, a door or enclosed space doesn't keep their little nose from working when something interesting is there.

In addition, the dogs were taken all around the area surrounding BH, the river and I believe the landfill?

Maybe I used the wrong word when I said control. SM told LE that he had concerns that he had picked something up on his shoes or clothes when he was in LG's apt and transferred it to his apt. LE could have disputed that claim by taking the dogs in the friend's apts that also had been in LG's apt same time as SM.

I think it would depend on how far inside the apt the scent was in order for dogs to smell it outside the door. Patterson said that the dogs hit on the concrete outside SM's door. Then the dogs hit in the back bedroom and bathroom which is a little confusing to me. Why was the scent on the concrete at the door and not inside until the back bedroom? I suppose SM could have had something in his hand, put it down to unlock his door, picked it up and carried it to the back bedroom or bath.

I read in one paper that the reason dogs were there so soon is because a family friend from Atlanta called in a favor. So were the dogs local or from Atlanta? I'll look for the link.

 

[Givsmetheshivers]

Why was the scent on the concrete at the door and not inside until the back bedroom?

:yuck:

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Patterson only states that the dogs DID NOT ENTER any of the other apts in the complex besides those three that were found to be positive hits for human remains.. IMO I believe the reason why no others were entered was because the dogs DID NOT ALERT AT THE FRONT DOOR OF ANY OF THE *OTHER 13 apts.. I believe the dogs were walked thru the complex and that the apts to which they alerted were positive to have had human remains contact with them.. They then entered and continued a search of the entire inner apt..

Yay! OK this is what my understanding was, too.

I thought that this site was helpful.

 

[Backwoods]

AgentFrankLundy -- A few pages back, there was discussion about the full video of the commitment hearing and how it appears to have been cut in a couple of places (although it could have been equipment glitch or something similar). Someone recalled that you had attended the hearing and might be able to shed some light. Have you had a chance to read those posts and consider whether you are able to "fill in" what is missing in the video? Thanks!

 

[ehmadpotter]

Originally Posted by 3doglady
Why was the scent on the concrete at the door and not inside until the back bedroom?

Perhaps because he had to set her down while he opened his door, then carried her to his bedroom or bathroom? Makes me sick to visualize that...but that's the visual I get from the cadaver dog hits.