IA IA - Elizabeth Collins, 8, & Lyric Cook, 10, Evansdale, 13 July 2012 - #27

[otto]

A long time ago someone asked if police had ever suggested that the bikes were planted or staged. Police didn't exactly say that the bikes were staged, but they did say the bikes and purse at the lake did not mean that the girls were at the lake ... which is the same as suggesting that they were put there by the perp.

"Abben declined to talk specifically about evidence other than saying the bicycle and purse, which had a cellphone in it, did not definitely place the girls at the lake. The cellphone was used by the girls to play games and was not activated to make calls, he said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dogs-detect-scents-missing-cousins_n_1681325.html

 

[otto]

Here's another article regarding the use of dogs to search dated July 15, so it sounds like dogs were involved from the beginning.

“The search has been expanded and now takes up probably about a five-mile-square area,” Abben says. “People on the ground along with dogs and then we also have law enforcement doing house-to-house (searches), making contact with people.”

http://www.radioiowa.com/2012/07/15/few-clues-in-disappearance-of-two-northeast-iowa-girls/

 

[threecrazykids]

family reminder
I see if going there again folks.

:nono:

I'm behaving I just want Gran's expertise on how the scene was handled immediately following the discovery of the bikes.

There is a video I've linked where Dan and Misty were interviewed immediately following the dogs being brought in - describing what was done and you also see footage of the FBI walking the family by the dogs.

Search Continues for Two Missing Girls - YouTube

I just want her expertise to tell us what it appears they are doing and tell us what her opinion is:

If the dogs were told "ignore this scent" when they were instructed to search the water and also the wooded area, we would know that the family was eliminated as what they were searching for.
In the same sense...if they later HAD found reason to check the area for a family's scent couldn't it have been compromised by the family being allowed in the wooded area to do their own searching?

We know they aren't suspects. Naturally family is looked at first in these types of cases, so I'm just wondering if the family being allowed to search and be in the area could have interfered with their scent IF the FBI decided to later bring the dogs in to check for any family members scent.

I hope that is ok to ask.lease:

 

[otto]

I'm behaving I just want Gran's expertise on how the scene was handled immediately following the discovery of the bikes.

There is a video I've linked where Dan and Misty were interviewed immediately following the dogs being brought in - describing what was done and you also see footage of the FBI walking the family by the dogs.

Search Continues for Two Missing Girls - YouTube

I just want her expertise to tell us what it appears they are doing and tell us what her opinion is:

If the dogs were told "ignore this scent" when they were instructed to search the water and also the wooded area, we would know that the family was eliminated as what they were searching for.
In the same sense...if they later HAD found reason to check the area for a family's scent couldn't it have been compromised by the family being allowed in the wooded area to do their own searching?

We know they aren't suspects. Naturally family is looked at first in these types of cases, so I'm just wondering if the family being allowed to search and be in the area could have interfered with their scent IF the FBI decided to later bring the dogs in to check for any family members scent.

I hope that is ok to ask.lease:

I'm confused by your question. Are you asking about possible tracking problems in the event that the dogs would be used to track the family? The dogs were used to track the children from oldest scent to newest scent and it seems to me that it doesn't matter whether the rest of the family was in the area since the dogs would never be used to track the family.

 

[JaimeInLA]

Another way to say it, removing the family and just asking in generalities:

Let's say that Al Bundy abducts a girl on a jogging trail on May 13. Al Bundy then joins in the search for the girl, and walks that same trail that he abducted them from before search dogs are brought in. Al Bundy is one of LE's top suspects. They'd like to know if he was at the scene of the crime. But the scene was not sealed off immediately. Al dropped his hair and skin during his "search." Search dogs were not brought in until May 15 -- 2 whole days later. Since Al had already returned there, between the abduction and when the scent dogs were brought in -- doesn't that ruin LE's ability to pin the crime on him? (At least via scent dogs and trace DNA)

This is a question about scent dogs and crime scene contamination -- NOT any particular suspect.

 

[threecrazykids]

Another way to say it, removing the family and just asking in generalities:

Let's say that Al Bundy abducts a girl on a jogging trail on May 13. Al Bundy then joins in the search for the girl, and walks that same trail that he abducted them from before search dogs are brought in. Al Bundy is one of LE's top suspects. They'd like to know if he was at the scene of the crime. But the scene was not sealed off immediately. Al dropped his hair and skin during his "search." Search dogs were not brought in until May 15 -- 2 whole days later. Since Al had already returned there, between the abduction and when the scent dogs were brought in -- doesn't that ruin LE's ability to pin the crime on him? (At least via scent dogs and trace DNA)

This is a question about scent dogs and crime scene contamination -- NOT any particular suspect.

Otto-

This is exactly what I mean. We see in the video not only family, but they said on the video "other people" as well were walked by the dogs to eliminate scents from the search.

IF by chance their suspect does turn out to be a family member down the road...or even a close family friend who (during this process) was "eliminated" during the scent search, wouldn't the scene have been compromised by allowing people into the area prior to the dogs indicating a hit?

 

[otto]

Another way to say it, removing the family and just asking in generalities:

Let's say that Al Bundy abducts a girl on a jogging trail on May 13. Al Bundy then joins in the search for the girl, and walks that same trail that he abducted them from before search dogs are brought in. Al Bundy is one of LE's top suspects. They'd like to know if he was at the scene of the crime. But the scene was not sealed off immediately. Al dropped his hair and skin during his "search." Search dogs were not brought in until May 15 -- 2 whole days later. Since Al had already returned there, between the abduction and when the scent dogs were brought in -- doesn't that ruin LE's ability to pin the crime on him? (At least via scent dogs and trace DNA)

This is a question about scent dogs and crime scene contamination -- NOT any particular suspect.

I'm still not clear. The dogs were used to track the missing children, not suspects. In what situation would tracking dogs be used to track people that are not missing? That is, why would tracking dogs be used to track anyone in the family?

"According to the FBI website, the scent teams work with crime scene technicians who collect scents by using a special vacuum. The smells are vacuumed onto a sterile pad and placed in a jar where they can be stored.

The bloodhounds take a whiff of the pad and can indicate a match or non-match when compared with other scents, according to the website. They can also use follow invisible trails of the scents."

http://wcfcourier.com/news/evansdal...cle_e795f002-d1ad-11e1-b983-001a4bcf887a.html

 

[otto]

Otto-

This is exactly what I mean. We see in the video not only family, but they said on the video "other people" as well were walked by the dogs to eliminate scents from the search.

IF by chance their suspect does turn out to be a family member down the road...or even a close family friend who (during this process) was "eliminated" during the scent search, wouldn't the scene have been compromised by allowing people into the area prior to the dogs indicating a hit?

Wouldn't police need a scent from the suspect in order to have the dogs track the suspect? They didn't have a suspect. More than 700 volunteers searched for the girls on the weekend after they vanished. If a suspect emerges in the future, I don't think that dogs will be used to verify that the suspect's scent was at the lake.

 

[threecrazykids]

Wouldn't police need a scent from the suspect in order to have the dogs track the suspect? They didn't have a suspect. More than 700 volunteers searched for the girls on the weekend after they vanished. If a suspect emerges in the future, I don't think that dogs will be used to verify that the suspect's scent was at the lake.

That is exactly my point. IF by chance, say 2 days into it, LE all of a sudden realizes that Uncle Fred is their guy even though he says he was fishing that morning, could they still use the dogs to prove his presence at the lake? They want to be able to place him at the lake or the wooded area where the bikes were found, they possibly lost their chance of prooving it.

I'm not talking about the dogs tracking a missing person exclusively. I'm talking dogs in general used to identify scents at the scene in general.

Say LE gets a tip that Uncle Fred wasn't fishing that morning. Uncle Fred had also came to the lake when the bikes were found. Once police allowed Uncle Fred along with the family to search the wooded area on their own wouldn't any possibility of proving him there PRIOR to the bikes being found be next to impossible with using any kind of scent dog?

That's what I'm asking of Gran.

My assumption being that even IF they had a suspect in the case (family or not) a day or so into it, scent identification couldn't be used because Uncle Fred's scent is all over the scene because he was helping. And only immediately following the bikes discovery would they know that Uncle Fred had no reason to have his scent in the area with the girls bikes because he said he was fishing.

As you said...at this point, it would be unrealistic to have a dog brought in because it's been months. However, a day or so later, what if LE got a tip about someone who could have been a suspect - they'd never be able to prove that scent was there PRIOR to the searching of the woods.

Hope that clears up what I'm asking Gran to explain.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I don't think dogs are used in that capacity. Even if the crime scene was immediately locked down and no one allowed on it. It was a public trail, there is no way to prove that the perp was there doing the crime merely by his scent and DNA being on the trail. That is not evidence.

If that were the case then everyone on that trail that day is now a prime suspect, just because they took a walk.

 

[threecrazykids]

I don't think dogs are used in that capacity. Even if the crime scene was immediately locked down and no one allowed on it. It was a public trail, there is no way to prove that the perp was there doing the crime merely by his scent and DNA being on the trail. That is not evidence.

If that were the case then everyone on that trail that day is now a prime suspect, just because they took a walk.

:waitasec:

Hmmm...that doesn't make sense to me. Then why would they need to "eliminate" the family's scent per the video I posted?

A scent trail I would think could be used to identify someone in the area or not. If Uncle Fred says he's never been to the trail nor had he ever even been to the lake I would think scent dogs could prove otherwise.

It may not be enough to convict on it's own, but it could certainly show he was there.

Hopefully our expert can explain how it works.

 

[jenandemmie]

I know there are different types of dogs: there are tracking dogs, air-scent dogs, cadaver dogs and other specialized types of dogs.
I know a cold and damp area is preferable over a hot and dry area for tracking purposes (wasn't it hot and dry at that time?).
I know grass and bushes and soft surfaces are preferable to hardened surfaces like asphalt and cement (lake area would have been a mixture of these surfaces).
I know dogs track from the oldest scent to the newest scent.
And I know that some dogs can track a scent (depending on the type of dog) up to a few weeks, maybe even a month or more in ideal conditions.
Now, since the girls rode the bikes everyday for at least 5 days (I've linked to this info in a quote by Misty in a previous post) and even they rode the bikes that day, how can we be sure that the dogs were tracking rafts from the girls themselves and not rafts dispersed from the bicycle? If a shoe or shirt can hold enough scent to track, surely a bicycle handled, sweat upon and sat on for days at a time would carry a strong scent. I've tried searching for this info myself and there doesn't seem to be much info on how that would help (or confuse) a tracker. Would handling an object covered with rafts (carrying the bicycle) transfer enough of them onto another person for a dog be able to discern the difference?

 

[JaimeInLA]

:waitasec:

Hmmm...that doesn't make sense to me. Then why would they need to "eliminate" the family's scent per the video I posted?

A scent trail I would think could be used to identify someone in the area or not. If Uncle Fred says he's never been to the trail nor had he ever even been to the lake I would think scent dogs could prove otherwise.

It may not be enough to convict on it's own, but it could certainly show he was there.

Hopefully our expert can explain how it works.

Yes, I agree with you. And I know dogs are sometimes used to track suspects here (not just missing people). I've seen police chases on TV where they lose the suspect, but allow the dogs to get his scent from the car, then send the dogs off after the suspect to find him.

 

[JaimeInLA]

Wouldn't police need a scent from the suspect in order to have the dogs track the suspect? They didn't have a suspect. More than 700 volunteers searched for the girls on the weekend after they vanished. If a suspect emerges in the future, I don't think that dogs will be used to verify that the suspect's scent was at the lake.

I realize I am walking into a trap here, but...oh well...

At the time, they DID have a suspect. They outright accused one of the crime. Granted, later they said that person is no longer a suspect (but never cleared him/her). But AT THAT TIME he/she WAS a suspect.

 

[iamnotagolem]

:waitasec:

Hmmm...that doesn't make sense to me. Then why would they need to "eliminate" the family's scent per the video I posted?

A scent trail I would think could be used to identify someone in the area or not. If Uncle Fred says he's never been to the trail nor had he ever even been to the lake I would think scent dogs could prove otherwise.

It may not be enough to convict on it's own, but it could certainly show he was there.

Hopefully our expert can explain how it works.

They eliminate the family scent because that would already be on the girls, when they send the dog to follow the scent, they need the dog to follow the girls scent, not uncle bobs scent that is on the girls. If they don't eliminate uncle bobs scent then the dog could trace his scent instead of the girls.

If they wanted to know if uncle bob had been in the area, they would have to eliminate every one else's scent then send the dog to trace uncle bob. But if uncle bobs scent was on the girls through innocent contamination, then the dog could still be tracking the girls instead of uncle bob, if they didn't eliminate the girls scent.

Hopefully that makes sense and hopefully we can get a dog pro in here to clear this up for us.

 

[iamnotagolem]

Yes, I agree with you. And I know dogs are sometimes used to track suspects here (not just missing people). I've seen police chases on TV where they lose the suspect, but allow the dogs to get his scent from the car, then send the dogs off after the suspect to find him.

They would need a suspect to send the dogs after the suspect.

At the time that the dogs were used they were merely looking for the girls. They weren't even considered abducted until a week later. It was just a search mission.

 

[iamnotagolem]

I know there are different types of dogs: there are tracking dogs, air-scent dogs, cadaver dogs and other specialized types of dogs.
I know a cold and damp area is preferable over a hot and dry area for tracking purposes (wasn't it hot and dry at that time?).
I know grass and bushes and soft surfaces are preferable to hardened surfaces like asphalt and cement (lake area would have been a mixture of these surfaces).
I know dogs track from the oldest scent to the newest scent.
And I know that some dogs can track a scent (depending on the type of dog) up to a few weeks, maybe even a month or more in ideal conditions.
Now, since the girls rode the bikes everyday for at least 5 days (I've linked to this info in a quote by Misty in a previous post) and even they rode the bikes that day, how can we be sure that the dogs were tracking rafts from the girls themselves and not rafts dispersed from the bicycle? If a shoe or shirt can hold enough scent to track, surely a bicycle handled, sweat upon and sat on for days at a time would carry a strong scent. I've tried searching for this info myself and there doesn't seem to be much info on how that would help (or confuse) a tracker. Would handling an object covered with rafts (carrying the bicycle) transfer enough of them onto another person for a dog be able to discern the difference?

It was hot and humid in July in Evansdale, not hot and dry. Hth

 

[jenandemmie]

It was hot and humid in July in Evansdale, not hot and dry. Hth

Ok, I was thinking dry because of the drought but I guess a drought doesn't mean it can't be humid. Thanks.

 

[otto]

That is exactly my point. IF by chance, say 2 days into it, LE all of a sudden realizes that Uncle Fred is their guy even though he says he was fishing that morning, could they still use the dogs to prove his presence at the lake? They want to be able to place him at the lake or the wooded area where the bikes were found, they possibly lost their chance of prooving it.

I'm not talking about the dogs tracking a missing person exclusively. I'm talking dogs in general used to identify scents at the scene in general.

Say LE gets a tip that Uncle Fred wasn't fishing that morning. Uncle Fred had also came to the lake when the bikes were found. Once police allowed Uncle Fred along with the family to search the wooded area on their own wouldn't any possibility of proving him there PRIOR to the bikes being found be next to impossible with using any kind of scent dog?

That's what I'm asking of Gran.

My assumption being that even IF they had a suspect in the case (family or not) a day or so into it, scent identification couldn't be used because Uncle Fred's scent is all over the scene because he was helping. And only immediately following the bikes discovery would they know that Uncle Fred had no reason to have his scent in the area with the girls bikes because he said he was fishing.

As you said...at this point, it would be unrealistic to have a dog brought in because it's been months. However, a day or so later, what if LE got a tip about someone who could have been a suspect - they'd never be able to prove that scent was there PRIOR to the searching of the woods.

Hope that clears up what I'm asking Gran to explain.

I think that search dogs can be used as an investigative tool, but regarding using a dog to prove that Fred was at a crime scene, never. Prosecutors can't argue that someone is guilty because the dog picked up a scent at some location.

 

[otto]

I realize I am walking into a trap here, but...oh well...

At the time, they DID have a suspect. They outright accused one of the crime. Granted, later they said that person is no longer a suspect (but never cleared him/her). But AT THAT TIME he/she WAS a suspect.

Police have never had a suspect. It's a police tactic to state that there is enough evidence for a conviction so the person being interviewed may has well confess.