threecrazykids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 117
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.
I think we are trying to say the same thing...just in different ways.:blushing:
However, do you agree that IF they had a suspect a day or so later, the scene could have been contaminated by innocent (or NOT innocent) people being in the area searching? (Assuming they DID have a suspect that was or is close to the girls).
I certainly am no expert on the dogs so hopefully she can chime in here to help.
Basically, if Uncle Fred had no contact recently with the girls, said he was fishing and turns out he wasn't...couldn't the dogs prove that Uncle Bob was with the girls at the lake?
I'm not sure how much handlers can read from a dog or what the dog can really tell a handler. I think they are a lot smarter than humans when it comes to this stuff so the dog maybe could KNOW who was there and when, but humans can't communicate clearly enough with the dog for the dog to say "hey...Uncle Bob was here...WITH the girls at the same time and it was within the last 2 days".
Is that possible?