GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #11

[bessie]

Please continue here.

Previous Threads:
Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3
Thread #4
Thread #5
Thread #6
Thread #7
Thread #8
Thread #9
Thread #10
Thread #11

Media Thread

Lauren Teresa Giddings
April 18, 1984 -- June 26, 2011
Rest in Peace
​

 

[bessie]

Sorry I had to copy them this way, but if I don't, they will all fall ahead of the OP.

Wouldn't any blood have those components after a certain time period -- as it (the blood itself) decomposes?

eta: sorry if all this covers old ground -- I haven't closely followed any cases on WebSleuths before this one

Oh, no, Backwoods, I didn't mean that you should know that. It was just an aside. I think the answer is in this article I've just started reading. I have to get some sleep and probably won't finish it tonight. But if you're interested in reading it, it's the Hoffman ("Characterization of the volatile organic compounds...") study on this page at the Paws site.
http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/hrd.html

I just watched the pertinent part of the hearing again. Answers to two questions that have come up in today's/tonight's discussions:

(1) Patterson says the dogs DID alert on the laundry room.

(2) Patterson DID say the washers and dryers are stacked.

I am about to see if I can find the answer, but here at work, who knows if the computer will let me open anything I find. My question is pretty simple. The dogs hit on decomposition. Blood does decompensate, so I think they should hit on blood. But my question is does the scent of decomposition settle in the air or only on an object? How do the dogs detect it, I mean. Does it have to on an object for them to hit, or could a body have been in the room without actually touching anything and they still get a hit?

Still catching up from earlier tonight, but these blue gloves are exactly as I said they were.. And were used exactly as I thought was most likely their purpose..
Here's my post from last Friday after the hearing:

Originally Posted by SmoothOperator
The plan was for it to be used just exactly the way it was used.. He got to throw it out there into the wind..most importantly that wind was into the public's knowledge..And here we are discussing it and people across the nation many thinking uh oh! the defense found evidence pointing AWAY FROM STEPHEN!!! that sticks with ppl.. the court of opinion I used to not think meant a hill of beans.. but it does certainly seem these days with media saturation that just as we see cases do play out in the public's opinion.. and well some of those ppl end up on juries..

IMO we'll likely never hear peep one else about these elusive "pair of blue gloves"

Buford's purpose was served today with his throwing out the blue glove.. its game on for the defense and their already throwing the chit at the wall to see what will stick or just to further muddy up the waters..

 

[bessie]

Forgot one.

Complex owner: Blue gloves belong to me
http://www.macon.com/2011/09/01/1685668/complex-owner-blue-gloves-belong.html

 

[PsychoMom]

Okay, I found this:
http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

...
Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination)...

http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml

...Canines detect odours direct from the source or residual scents; odours which persisting in an area after the original source is no longer present.

Obviously the air is full of a vast variety of different odours, many of which will be powerfully clear to the dog. Fortunately they are able to distinguish between different odours, even if one smell overpowers another, and trace a specific scent to its source. ...

So, this is saying that even without a body touching the surface of anything, the dogs can detect decomp in an area. Is that correct? Basically, even without direct contact, the dogs can get the decomp scent. Like in the back bedroom of McD's apartment. Correct?

 

[Backwoods]

Okay, I found this:
http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml


So, this is saying that even without a body touching the surface of anything, the dogs can detect decomp in an area. Is that correct? Basically, even without direct contact, the dogs can get the decomp scent. Like in the back bedroom of McD's apartment. Correct?

Don't know if I know the science to answer the question ... That article is one bessie posted a while back (or is based on the same study she posted, rather) and I brought it up the other day when we were pondering a question similar to yours. bessie pointed out that though the remains in the study were wrapped in cotton blankets, they were (albeit through the blankets) in contact with the carpet for a period of time... so I just am not sure yet.

 

[Backwoods]

Also, if I'm remembering correctly, the degree of decomposition -- how long the person has been dead -- is also a factor

 

[Backwoods]

I believe the pdf about the study is here, if you want more of the science:

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf

It really is an interesting study -- the pdf is about 5 pages, I think, and all interesting, and the "Discussion" section sort of wraps it all up and includes some interesting comments about the place of HRD dogs in investigations

 

[PsychoMom]

Checking your article next. I found this one: http://www.forensicsinthenews.com/Summer-O8-ExaminerPDFs/SearchDogs.pdf

...
Cadaver Dogs
—Although many search dogs are
cross-trained to locate the scent of a cadaver (because
during a search it is rarely known with certainty
whether a subject is alive or dead), cadaver
dogs are specialists at finding human remains. Land
cadaver dogs can find remains through air-scenting,
and they can even detect buried remains from
the scent rising from below the ground. On water,
cadaver dogs can find human remains under water
or ice from the gases that are produced by decay. It
takes a dog that is able to focus for a long time and
a handler who understands water current dynamics
to make a successful water search (West Jersey
K-9 Search and Rescue, 2006).,,

This article does say they use air-scenting.

 

[SouthernKate]

With the new article about the gloves belonging to BB, I really think they are going to turn out to be unrelated to the case. Plus, can't a quick test determine if the substance really is blood? And it's been almost a week since LE went to retrieve the gloves.

I know that the glove info at the hearing was interesting, to me at least, because it's the only new tidbit we really got. So, I wanted something to come from them - new evidence, possibly something concrete to tie McD to the murder, but I'm guessing that is not meant to be. I could be wrong and maybe they have something, but I'm definitely thinking that with all the evidence collected, LE would surely (and hopefully) have found them in their searches.

Buford sure can get out minds spinning though.

 

[Backwoods]

With the new article about the gloves belonging to BB, I really think they are going to turn out to be unrelated to the case. Plus, can't a quick test determine if the substance really is blood? And it's been almost a week since LE went to retrieve the gloves.

I know that the glove info at the hearing was interesting, to me at least, because it's the only new tidbit we really got. So, I wanted something to come from them - new evidence, possibly something concrete to tie McD to the murder, but I'm guessing that is not meant to be. I could be wrong and maybe they have something, but I'm definitely thinking that with all the evidence collected, LE would surely (and hopefully) have found them in their searches.

Buford sure can get out minds spinning though.

I posted in the earlier thread and don't think it got transferred over (and shouldn't have, as it was not an earth-shattering post!) that the article reads to me like the reporters themselves haven't gotten all the answers but are just throwing whatever they were able to get on out to the public -- "keep 'em reading"!

 

[bessie]

Checking your article next. I found this one: http://www.forensicsinthenews.com/Summer-O8-ExaminerPDFs/SearchDogs.pdf


This article does say they use air-scenting.

Yes, air scenting where a cadaver is present. That's very different from air scenting where no cadaver is present, nor a surface which made contact with the cadaver.

 

[bessie]

I posted in the earlier thread and don't think it got transferred over (and shouldn't have, as it was not an earth-shattering post!) that the article reads to me like the reporters themselves haven't gotten all the answers but are just throwing whatever they were able to get on out to the public -- "keep 'em reading"!

But how difficult would it have been to ask, "Are they your gloves?", "Did you leave them on the dryer?", and "Was it blood or paint on the gloves?" Actually, they probably did ask those questions, but the writing isn't clear.

 

[PsychoMom]

Yes, air scenting where a cadaver is present. That's very different from air scenting where no cadaver is present, nor a surface which made contact with the cadaver.

I guess what I am asking is if the body did not touch a surface in McD's apartment, would the odor still have been there for the dogs? It would have to be in the air, I would think, if he used some barrier to prevent the body from touching surfaces.

 

[bessie]

I guess what I am asking is if the body did not touch a surface in McD's apartment, would the odor still have been there for the dogs? It would have to be in the air, I would think, if he used some barrier to prevent the body from touching surfaces.

Yep. That's the question. A few of us have been trying to pinpoint the answer, but we haven't found it yet.
Your question's a little different, though. If the body was in his apartment, it would have to have come into contact with a surface. The question we've pondered is whether the scent could be carried from place to place in the absence of a body. In other words, you walk into an apartment where a corpse was present, will the undetectable odor permeate your clothing, be transmitted by you to another location, and remain detectable to cadaver dogs in that location after you are gone?

 

[PsychoMom]

Interesting. I am still searching. I think I might go ask the half dozen cops sitting outside my patient's door. They might have an answer tonight. They aren't that busy at the moment.

 

[SmoothOperator]

More on the actual HRD/cadaver dogs.. An actual study done.. Results that a dog alerted on human remains As soon as the deceased only having been dead an hour and 25mins.. When the human body is deceased it immediately begins to decompose but but yet as far as scent goes it still will give off a live scent for a short period of time.. Hence the atudy to attempt to pinpoint about the time after death does the scent change that of deceased human remains.. The earliest was one hour 25 mins after death but the amount of time that the digs most consistently alerted on the deceased remains was 2.5-3hrs..
More at link:

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.

 

[PsychoMom]

Yep. That's the question. A few of us have been trying to pinpoint the answer, but we haven't found it yet.
Your question's a little different, though. If the body was in his apartment, it would have to have come into contact with a surface. The question we've pondered is whether the scent could be carried from place to place in the absence of a body. In other words, you walk into an apartment where a corpse was present, will the undetectable odor permeate your clothing, be transmitted by you to another location, and remain detectable to cadaver dogs in that location after you are gone?

Actually, I was thinking if the body were on a surface that is no longer there, such as plastic, would the scent still be there. If the body and the plastic barrier were no longer present, would there be a scent.

So, according to the cops, it depends. Big help guys! lol! If the dog is trained to hit scents, then it will hit scents and odor from the air. If it is trained to hit objects, it will only hit if there is some remaining particle of the body.

Interestingly, we had a case up here where a body was suspected of being in the water. The dogs kept hitting on one particular area over and over again. They found the body elsewhere, but where the dogs had been hitting, they found a bunch of discarded dirty diapers. The dogs hit on the odor of the diapers as something from a decomposing body. And those were most likely the same dogs from Villa Rica considering we are much closer to them than Macon is.

The officers also stated if the dogs were using scent to find the area of decomposition, the scent could travel into other areas based on the movement of the flow of air and other elements, such as humidity and temperature. Makes for some food for thought.

 

[Oriah]

Okay, I found this:
http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml


So, this is saying that even without a body touching the surface of anything, the dogs can detect decomp in an area. Is that correct? Basically, even without direct contact, the dogs can get the decomp scent. Like in the back bedroom of McD's apartment. Correct?

Trying to keep up- and not sure about all of the articles, have not had a chance to catch up- but NO. An HRD dog should not alert on anything other than the deposited scent of human remains. Human remains might be a body, or it might be part of a body, or it might be trace scent evidence of a body. HR scent is deposited- only trace of the scent is airborn.

HRD dogs should accurately alert on only a deposit of HR scent.

 

[Oriah]

Yep. That's the question. A few of us have been trying to pinpoint the answer, but we haven't found it yet.
Your question's a little different, though. If the body was in his apartment, it would have to have come into contact with a surface. The question we've pondered is whether the scent could be carried from place to place in the absence of a body. In other words, you walk into an apartment where a corpse was present, will the undetectable odor permeate your clothing, be transmitted by you to another location, and remain detectable to cadaver dogs in that location after you are gone?

Not unless you come into some sort of physical contact with human remains- and there is physical transference of biological matter.

A dog might smell ya- but an HRD dog shouldn't alert, unless biological matter is present.

 

[Oriah]

Actually, I was thinking if the body were on a surface that is no longer there, such as plastic, would the scent still be there. If the body and the plastic barrier were no longer present, would there be a scent.

So, according to the cops, it depends. Big help guys! lol! If the dog is trained to hit scents, then it will hit scents and odor from the air. If it is trained to hit objects, it will only hit if there is some remaining particle of the body.

Interestingly, we had a case up here where a body was suspected of being in the water. The dogs kept hitting on one particular area over and over again. They found the body elsewhere, but where the dogs had been hitting, they found a bunch of discarded dirty diapers. The dogs hit on the odor of the diapers as something from a decomposing body. And those were most likely the same dogs from Villa Rica considering we are much closer to them than Macon is.

The officers also stated if the dogs were using scent to find the area of decomposition, the scent could travel into other areas based on the movement of the flow of air and other elements, such as humidity and temperature. Makes for some food for thought.

Properly trained HRD dogs should NOT be hitting on anything other than decomp. Dirty diapers are not decomp, unless there are trace amounts of decomp ON them.
Human remains are exactly that- remains of humans. There has to be biological human remains present for an HRD dog to alert accurately.

That said- there would have to be trace human remains left behind (no matter the substrate) in order to have an accurate and verified hit from an HRD dog.