IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #26

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
and how does this apply concretely to the case at hand?

I asked her to explain in detail why the FBI's scent dogs would not have mistaken the girls' scent from a previous visit with scent they had left with the bikes on the day they disappeared, because I was wondering whether they were sure the scent trail to the water meant the girls had been there at the same time.

Thanks again, grainne dhu!
 
Dogs, wolves, coyote and fox all instinctively track from oldest to newest scent. Any animal that hunts for food does so because if they don't, they aren't likely to eat. A fairly common newbie training mistake to make is to teach the dog to track backwards. It isn't that dogs cannot track backwards, it's just that they have a strong instinctive desire to track forwards. I think we can rule out that sort of newbie training error in the case of the FBI dogs.

Now, imagine that the dog is looking for scent and moving along a path that is perpendicular to the scent trail. The two paths make a shape like a capital T (dog's path the vertical stroke, target scent the horizontal stroke). There's a chance that the dog will initially start tracking backwards. But an experienced, well trained dog will reverse within 10 feet if they find themselves going backwards. A normal, healthy human can cover 10 feet in 1-2 seconds at a brisk walk. So that means that a dog can tell the difference between scent that is 2 hours old and scent that is 2 hours 2 seconds old.

Pretty amazing!

A very common LE task for dogs is to figure out if a certain item was placed by the target person or if that item got into the environment in some other way. So the dog will be given the target scent from an item known to have been handled by the target person. Then they take the dog to where the item was found in the environment and the handler does the equivalent of asking the dog "did the target person go anywhere after this item was left here?"

The dog will check out the item and indicate "yeah, the target person was definitely here." Then the dog starts searching to find out where the target person went next. Most dogs will start making a loose spiral centred on the item. If they can't find any newer scent, they will go back to the item and then resume casting for newer scent.

Depending on the dog, they will circle the item 1-4 times before checking back at the item. Usually by the second time the dog checks back to the item, they are giving off definite signals of "ain't no newer scent here, partner." The handler usually encourages the dog to try again but at some point, the dog makes it clear that they are simply not finding newer scent. Some dogs will bark at their handlers in a very annoyed tone, as if they were saying "what part of this are you choosing not to understand???" Dogs are willing workers and remarkably tolerant but they don't have infinite patience.

I am purely speculating here: I think that when dogs are in an environment that they perceive it very differently from humans. For a human, it would probably be like being able to see a type of ghost of everyone who had moved through that environment in the last 2-4 weeks plus seeing the solid form of anyone who is actually present in the environment.

As a general guideline, if a scent question can be phrased in such a way as to require a yes/no answer, then a dog can be trained to answer the question.

Thank you very much.That is amazing! Now I understand what you mean. I believed you before :) but I didn't quite get how it worked.

So if I'm understanding that correctly, the dogs say that the girls left the bikes where they were and walked along the water toward the trees? But if the perp had carried them farther into the woods, they would have left scent still, right? What about in a vehicle?

Now I understand where they got drowning. And the paddleboat question.
 
So, for those of you who are certain that LE isn't stumped, have their ducks in a row, and are just waiting for....

What?...

The autopsy results/forensics?

Someone to run their mouth to ensure another "slam dunk" (like the Evelyn Miller case)...

What is stopping LE from making an arrest?

The reason I ask is because for one, if any fingerprints were on the bikes AND the perp/perps had been arrested before, then their prints would have been in the database.


I'm only asking because I'm curious as to what other sleuthers are thinking is holding things up. What is missing to bring justice to these two beautiful girls?
That of course is assuming prints were able to be lifted.

If it was a family member or the girls prints only there would be a valid explanation to their prints being on the bike.

I am going to have to assume that since it was back in July when the bikes were found, it's safe to say that either they weren't able to lift prints or the people's prints that were on the bike didn't produce enough evidence to warrant an arrest.

What is LE waiting for??

I am leaning toward a scenerio like Evelyn Miller. However, I would not be surprised if this is NOT the case either! But, considering the lack of information LE has given us, I think they are not releasing information such as verifying if TG saw the girls' bikes or if the fisher people came forward, cause of death, etc. because alll of that is crucial to their case. We know there is something "not quite right" with the information that we have. The perp knows what information is correct and what is not and of course LE is very well aware of it because they are in control of all of the information. I think the guilty party or parties are walking a tight rope and if they slip up or have already slipped up someone will know and hopefully inform LE. I think LE has a pretty good idea who did it, but are playing a game of cat and mouse in order to get all the evidence to prosecute. :twocents:
 
Thank you very much.That is amazing! Now I understand what you mean. I believed you before :) but I didn't quite get how it worked.

So if I'm understanding that correctly, the dogs say that the girls left the bikes where they were and walked along the water toward the trees? But if the perp had carried them farther into the woods, they would have left scent still, right? What about in a vehicle?

Now I understand where they got drowning. And the paddleboat question.

Yes, Thank you GrainneDhu! I love reading your posts. You too carbuff!

I, however, am not really understanding what you mean about where they got drowning and the paddleboat question.... :banghead:

If the girls were at the lake and actually went out in a paddleboat and they were killed while they were in the paddleboat and then brought back to shore, would the scent change for the dogs? :waitasec:
 
My husband who never goes to the doctors unless he is very very sick and has no choice, went when he got poison ivy that was very bad and he was driven crazy by the itching.So you never know if it spread all over the itching will drive you crazy.

my husband goes to the quick care at least once a year for a cortisone shot to clear up the poison ivy rash

Brandon Scott Lavergne also sought treatment for the rash he got disposing of Mickey' s body
 
I think LE has a suspect, motive, evidence, and the perp was questioned and maybe even arrested for something else prior to the bodies being found. At that time, since there were no bodies or "slam duck" evidence to arrest the person for murder, he/she/they bonded out or were let go from their previous charges. I think the person(s) killed and disposed of the bodies sometimes afterwards and left the area or country. I think LE needs to find the person to make an arrest, and alerting the public to the name and witnesses, evidence would not be good!

You had me until they left the area/country and alerting the public would not be good. If they have suspect and motive and EVIDENCE and the only thing missing was the person, they most certainly would put out a release to help find this person(s).
 
Daniel Morrissey trial moved to Davenport

28 minutes ago • By JEFF REINITZ, jeff.reinitz@wcfcourier.com(0) CommentsWATERLOO, Iowa --- Trial for the father of one of the abducted cousins has been moved out of Black Hawk County because of publicity over the girls’ disappearance.

District Court Judge David Staudt ruled that it would be unlikely to find an impartial jury in the state’s domestic abuse and drug cases against Daniel Eugene Morrissey, 36.

more at link

http://wcfcourier.com/news/evansdal...cle_1eb4d7d4-5a74-11e2-adcc-001a4bcf887a.html
 
The trial for the father of one of cousins abducted from Evansdale, Iowa, last year has been moved out of Black Hawk County because of publicity over the girls' disappearance.

District Court Judge David Staudt ruled that it would be unlikely to find an impartial jury in the state's domestic abuse and drug cases against Daniel Eugene Morrissey, 36.

In a ruling signed Monday, Staudt ordered Morrissey's trials be moved to Davenport.

He noted the results a questionnaire presented to residents found a substantial number had heard or read a great deal about the missing girls and Morrissey.

"The court further finds that the juror questionnaire results reveal that a substantial portion of the potential jurors in Black Hawk County have reached a fixed opinion concerning Mr. Morrissey's guilt or innocence and would be unable to fairly assess the facts in his case," Staudt wrote in his ruling.
http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/lo...cle_a7309147-a8b3-51b1-ba3c-38b16cd5e8fc.html

Jan 18th is next court date
 
There was no profit here. Two children were grabbed off the street on a warm, summer afternoon. They were taken to an isolated, abandoned park 20 miles away and their bodies were found five months later, by chance.

There was no profit. This is most likely a sexual predator that hid what he did very well for half a year. This is most likely a very dangerous man that preys on women and children, and who will do this again next time there is an opportunity. There is no "profit" in a murder like this.

BBM. How do you know this? The question was "who profited?" To profit means to be of service or advantage or to derive benefit. If this crime was sexually motivated, and the perp(s) derived sexual pleasure from the crime, they profited.

I think asking who profited is fair. Was it an RSO? Was it a sociopath? Was it someone who wanted to hurt one of the family members for some reason?

<Mod Snip>
 
There was no profit here. Two children were grabbed off the street on a warm, summer afternoon. They were taken to an isolated, abandoned park 20 miles away and their bodies were found five months later, by chance.

There was no profit. This is most likely a sexual predator that hid what he did very well for half a year. This is most likely a very dangerous man that preys on women and children, and who will do this again next time there is an opportunity. There is no "profit" in a murder like this.

BBM

Rather than profit, maybe the word "gain" would work better for you.

No one, IMO, would abduct and kill two little girls for nothing. The killer had to profit in some way or gain something in order to undertake this crime. The profit/gain could be: sexual gratification; the high of killing; the thrill of risk-taking; revenge against a person or society at large; financial gain (if done for hire or to pay off debt); or probably a thousand other pay offs that normal people can't even understand.

I think it is reasonable to discuss who profits, because IMO there could be more than sexual gratification involved in this terrible crime.

Discussing who might profit/gain, and in what way, might open up possibilities that we haven't considered before. If we abide by TOS and don't accuse family members, or well-meaning witnesses, I think this could be a beneficial line of discussion, IMO.

To say unequivocally that "there is no profit" seems closed-minded, and your posts have never revealed (to me at least) that you are a closed-minded person. I hope my post might help you look at the profit discussion a little differently. JMO.
 
BBM. How do you know this? The question was "who profited?" To profit means to be of service or advantage or to derive benefit. If this crime was sexually motivated, and the perp(s) derived sexual pleasure from the crime, they profited.

I think asking who profited is fair. Was it an RSO? Was it a sociopath? Was it someone who wanted to hurt one of the family members for some reason?

<Mod Snip>

BBM I think when people hear/read the word profit they think money. Maybe 'benefit' would be a better word choice. Obviously, if the perp is a sex offender he would benefit by satisfying his urges. If the perp enjoys the act of killing then he/she benefitted in that way.
I have tried many times to figure a member of the family, including extended family, would have benefitted from this horrendous crime and can not come up with anything. When I was going through my divorce I was so angry/hurt that I could have killed my soon to be ex but I didn't. My father actually offered to kill him which made me beg for him not to kill my ex (the one I could kill myself). My father came right out and told me he could fix my 'problem'. Is it possible the perp 'fixed' someones 'problem' by murdering the two beautiful girls?
 
I think it's only fair that if we aren't allowed to discuss the family as a possible suspect we need to also follow the same ideology for RSO's in the area.

Per the below article RSO's have all been cleared as well.


Authorities stopped cars near Meyers Lake in 95-degree heat and searched inside the backs of vehicles and checked trunks, the Register reported. All sex offenders in the area have been cleared after talking with police, the report said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/search-for-missing-iowa-cousins-yields-no-clues/#ixzz2HV4v9d00

So...family has been cleared and RSO's have been cleared. Who's left?

:waitasec:
 
BBM I think when people hear/read the word profit they think money. Maybe 'benefit' would be a better word choice. Obviously, if the perp is a sex offender he would benefit by satisfying his urges. If the perp enjoys the act of killing then he/she benefitted in that way.
I have tried many times to figure a member of the family, including extended family, would have benefitted from this horrendous crime and can not come up with anything. When I was going through my divorce I was so angry/hurt that I could have killed my soon to be ex but I didn't. My father actually offered to kill him which made me beg for him not to kill my ex (the one I could kill myself). My father came right out and told me he could fix my 'problem'. Is it possible the perp 'fixed' someones 'problem' by murdering the two beautiful girls?


Sorry to quote myself but have to bee more clear on my question.

BBM For arguments sake, let's say the girls were taking up too much of ( insert a name) time. The perp hear that person complain and realizes the person doing the complaining will not do anything to remedy the situation. So, without saying a word about it, the perp fixes it for them.

OK. I still don't make much sense. I tried though.
 
I'm not convinced that LE has no suspect. They may think they know who did this, but if no prints were found on the bikes and nothing of evidentiary value was found at 7 Bridges, suspicion may be ALL they have. And that is not enough to charge someone. Scott Peterson was not suspected publicly by LE in the disappearance of his wife, Laci. In fact, LE stated he was not a suspect, even as they locked him out of his home to remove bags items. they couldn't arrest him solely because he gave inconsistent statements. They had to build a case piece by piece. My guess is that LE is hoping something more substantial is discovered. Just my opinion, though.
 
I think it's only fair that if we aren't allowed to discuss the family as a possible suspect we need to also follow the same ideology for RSO's in the area.

Per the below article RSO's have all been cleared as well.


Authorities stopped cars near Meyers Lake in 95-degree heat and searched inside the backs of vehicles and checked trunks, the Register reported. All sex offenders in the area have been cleared after talking with police, the report said.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/search-for-missing-iowa-cousins-yields-no-clues/#ixzz2HV4v9d00

So...family has been cleared and RSO's have been cleared. Who's left?

:waitasec:

Anyone who isn't Heather, Drew, Misty or Dan (parents are not suspects per LE), including but not limited to a sex offender who hasn't been caught yet; a RSO who is not from the area; or a crazy nut with a motive known only to him/her. JMO
 
[/B]

Sorry to quote myself but have to bee more clear on my question.

BBM For arguments sake, let's say the girls were taking up too much of ( insert a name) time. The perp hear that person complain and realizes the person doing the complaining will not do anything to remedy the situation. So, without saying a word about it, the perp fixes it for them.

OK. I still don't make much sense. I tried though.

I see what you are saying. You mean if say Wylma had a significant other, he may know that she is overly tired from babysitting the kids every day and in his own warped mind, he may feel as though she would be better off without having to babysit?

The above was a silly hypothetical and I am in No way stating that I think that happened. Please do not ask me for a link that Wylma has a boyfriend :) I was simply trying to clarify mjskit's point in my own mind.
 
I'm not convinced that LE has no suspect. They may think they know who did this, but if no prints were found on the bikes and nothing of evidentiary value was found at 7 Bridges, suspicion may be ALL they have. And that is not enough to charge someone. Scott Peterson was not suspected publicly by LE in the disappearance of his wife, Laci. In fact, LE stated he was not a suspect, even as they locked him out of his home to remove bags items. they couldn't arrest him solely because he gave inconsistent statements. They had to build a case piece by piece. My guess is that LE is hoping something more substantial is discovered. Just my opinion, though.

BBM

Unfortunately, we probably all know of cases where LE has a suspect but was never able to make a case against him/her. I pray that isn't the case with Lyric and Lizzie.
 
Did Ollipop say he saw poison ivy in the wooded area around Maiden Lane? I was thinking he said he didn't see it. I hate poison ivy. I get it off the dogs. I get it off my husband's clothes. I think I can get it from driving past an area where it grows (OK. Maybe the last one is a slight exaggeration).

I asked about poison ivy when Ollipop was posting regularly. He said he hadn't seen it around Meyers Lake but that they had a different vining plant instead. My guess is bindweed, since it is also prolific in Iowa.
 
This post has stuck in my head all day. I don't believe it was coincidence that Lyric & Lizzie left their homebase again so close to their curfew (for lack of a better word). Having been in and out of the house during the morning, what if they received a phone call or email that instructed or invited them to come to the park? Obviously it would be from someone one or both of the girls knew and trusted enough to follow through on it. Maybe the same person Lyric & Aunt Tammy's daughter met earlier in the week? Say Mr./Ms. X (hereafter known simply as X for simplicity's sake) tells Lyric they need to meet again but that s/he will have to let Lyric know the time and place, or maybe X just knew when and where to call/email the girls. This presupposes X always planned to snatch one or both girls and made preparations for a quick and easy grab and getaway.

I'm working on a more in-depth theory, but I'm just not awake enough to verbalize my thoughts well. For now, I want to know two things:

1. Where did Lyric and cousin go on July 9? (and don't give me that "destination" garbage)
2. Who did they talk to?

I feel like these two questions are the key to cracking this and getting justice for our girls.

As I recall, Lyric's cousin is 11 years old. It is hard for me to believe that LE hasn't questioned her and that she could withhold any information she had.
 
and how does this apply concretely to the case at hand?

A poster whose name I cannot recall (sorry!) asked if the FBI dogs may have been tracking on scent left around Meyers Lake on a previous day to the day the girls disappeared. Since we know the girls were riding their bicycles the day they disappeared, the scent on the bicycles would have been newer than scent left at the park from a visit days before they disappeared.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
111
Guests online
1,584
Total visitors
1,695

Forum statistics

Threads
606,258
Messages
18,201,154
Members
233,793
Latest member
Cowboy89
Back
Top