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

[threecrazykids]

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?

 

[otto]

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?

If the dog indicated that Fred's scent was at the lake, then Fred would say that he was there on another day and no one could prove otherwise.

 

[iamnotagolem]

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?

The problem is that it is a public lake and there is nothing to stop Uncle FredBob from taking a walk, bike ride, going fishing, napping, etc at the lake that day, the previous day, the day after, the week before, etc. Uncle FredBob may not have fresh scent on the girls, if he didn't, then he wouldn't need to be eliminated.

They would have to know that Uncle FredBob was a suspect and use the dogs to trace his scent, but it still isn't enough to make him guilty. I would think they would need to find some pretty damning evidence to even further the investigation into him.

What if Uncle FredBob was fishing at the lake, saw the girls, said hi, gave them each a hug, picked their bikes up off the trail, gave them drinks, snacks, etc? He is their uncle, there is nothing sinister about any of what he did. There would need to be motive and other evidence to even think that Uncle FredBob was involved.

Even if Uncle FredBob lied and said he was at home watching TV all day, it still doesn't prove he did anything. He could lie for several reasons, he doesn't have a license, he is cheating on his spouse, he was buying hookers and blow, etc. Him being at the scene at some point still doesn't prove his involvement. Even if Uncle FredBob was responsible, his presence and scent at the lake don't prove that.

If there is family involvement in this case (and if LE suspects that to be the case) I'd hope they keep COD from the entire family. Otherwise, Uncle FredBob could say oh well I heard the COD from other family members.

I do think that the entire scene at Myers lake was contaminated and not preserved, as it should have been. The parents KNEW the girls wouldn't go to the lake, wouldn't swim in the lake and weren't in the lake. That should have been taken into consideration when the bikes were found there. The gereral pubic was not looking for these girls in passing cars, they weren't eyeing their odd neighbor, they were waiting to see if the bodies were in the bottom of the lake. Even though LE was pursuing other leads, the public's help in keeping a watchful eye for the girls, just wasn't there.

 

[SapphireSteel]

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 get what you're asking.

Short answer is - yes.

Long answer - dogs can find and track scent but what they cannot do is tell anyone Whodunnit, or when.

In this case, I have always felt this was planned to the last second, so to me it is quite possible that the girls were never there, and a perp dragged their clothing around the scene, which the dogs found.

A "red herring" straight out of Agatha Christie.

 

[SapphireSteel]

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?

All dogs are bombarded by scent every day, the same as we are bombarded by thoughts and sights and faces.

All the dogs can do is find a particular scent when requested.

They can't tell when it was deposited, how it was deposited, even the quanitiy deposited.

They can tell you it exists, and follow it, but that is all they can do.

The rest of it is up to humans.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The problem is that it is a public lake and there is nothing to stop Uncle FredBob from taking a walk, bike ride, going fishing, napping, etc at the lake that day, the previous day, the day after, the week before, etc. Uncle FredBob may not have fresh scent on the girls, if he didn't, then he wouldn't need to be eliminated.

They would have to know that Uncle FredBob was a suspect and use the dogs to trace his scent, but it still isn't enough to make him guilty. I would think they would need to find some pretty damning evidence to even further the investigation into him.

What if Uncle FredBob was fishing at the lake, saw the girls, said hi, gave them each a hug, picked their bikes up off the trail, gave them drinks, snacks, etc? He is their uncle, there is nothing sinister about any of what he did. There would need to be motive and other evidence to even think that Uncle FredBob was involved.

Even if Uncle FredBob lied and said he was at home watching TV all day, it still doesn't prove he did anything. He could lie for several reasons, he doesn't have a license, he is cheating on his spouse, he was buying hookers and blow, etc. Him being at the scene at some point still doesn't prove his involvement. Even if Uncle FredBob was responsible, his presence and scent at the lake don't prove that.

If there is family involvement in this case (and if LE suspects that to be the case) I'd hope they keep COD from the entire family. Otherwise, Uncle FredBob could say oh well I heard the COD from other family members.

I do think that the entire scene at Myers lake was contaminated and not preserved, as it should have been. The parents KNEW the girls wouldn't go to the lake, wouldn't swim in the lake and weren't in the lake. That should have been taken into consideration when the bikes were found there. The gereral pubic was not looking for these girls in passing cars, they weren't eyeing their odd neighbor, they were waiting to see if the bodies were in the bottom of the lake. Even though LE was pursuing other leads, the public's help in keeping a watchful eye for the girls, just wasn't there.

The girls were never confirmed to have actually got to the lake though...following this theory they should have preserved half of Evansdale.

Here is a link to the "bible" of missing children investigations, per the FBI. This is the blue print that law enforcement is taught to follow, and Black Hawk County followed it to a T. They cannot be faulted.

Don't forget, it's only hindsight that told them that the girls were indeed abducted...at the stage they were reported they could easily have still been at a friends house or stuck in a tree somewhere.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51536616/FBI-Child-Abduction-Response-Plan

 

[threecrazykids]

The problem is that it is a public lake and there is nothing to stop Uncle FredBob from taking a walk, bike ride, going fishing, napping, etc at the lake that day, the previous day, the day after, the week before, etc. Uncle FredBob may not have fresh scent on the girls, if he didn't, then he wouldn't need to be eliminated.

They would have to know that Uncle FredBob was a suspect and use the dogs to trace his scent, but it still isn't enough to make him guilty. I would think they would need to find some pretty damning evidence to even further the investigation into him.
What if Uncle FredBob was fishing at the lake, saw the girls, said hi, gave them each a hug, picked their bikes up off the trail, gave them drinks, snacks, etc? He is their uncle, there is nothing sinister about any of what he did. There would need to be motive and other evidence to even think that Uncle FredBob was involved.

Even if Uncle FredBob lied and said he was at home watching TV all day, it still doesn't prove he did anything. He could lie for several reasons, he doesn't have a license, he is cheating on his spouse, he was buying hookers and blow, etc. Him being at the scene at some point still doesn't prove his involvement. Even if Uncle FredBob was responsible, his presence and scent at the lake don't prove that.

If there is family involvement in this case (and if LE suspects that to be the case) I'd hope they keep COD from the entire family. Otherwise, Uncle FredBob could say oh well I heard the COD from other family members.

I do think that the entire scene at Myers lake was contaminated and not preserved, as it should have been. The parents KNEW the girls wouldn't go to the lake, wouldn't swim in the lake and weren't in the lake. That should have been taken into consideration when the bikes were found there. The gereral pubic was not looking for these girls in passing cars, they weren't eyeing their odd neighbor, they were waiting to see if the bodies were in the bottom of the lake. Even though LE was pursuing other leads, the public's help in keeping a watchful eye for the girls, just wasn't there.

I agree!:great:

So what if LE says "So, Uncle Fred...we have reason to think you weren't fishing the day the girls went missing...is there any reason we'd find your scent down around Meyer's Lake?

Uncle Fred says "never been to Meyer's Lake before".
Or..."yeah, I've fished there one time a couple years ago...but nope, haven't been there in years".

Now what? Can't LE say "let's just check to make sure...mind if we borrow your shirt?"

Fred says "sure, go ahead".

LE takes the shirt and the dog down to the lake...and BOOM dog indicates to the handler that his scent is indeed at the lake. (Assuming the dog can do this).

Now Uncle Fred has some explaining to do. Is it enough to prove guilt? NOPE...but it's enough to put pressure on Fred to say "we can prove you're lying about not being at the lake" and let the heat begin.

I'm not saying the dogs could ever prove innocence or guilt...I'm just saying I'm pretty confident that the dog can prove Uncle Fred was there when he says he wasn't.

 

[JaimeInLA]

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.

To be clear, I know that, and I think ThreeCrazyKids does too. We know what did happen in this case. We were pointing it out because we think it could have been done differently/better.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I agree!:great:

So what if LE says "So, Uncle Fred...we have reason to think you weren't fishing the day the girls went missing...is there any reason we'd find your scent down around Meyer's Lake?

Uncle Fred says "never been to Meyer's Lake before".
Or..."yeah, I've fished there one time a couple years ago...but nope, haven't been there in years".

Now what? Can't LE say "let's just check to make sure...mind if we borrow your shirt?"

Fred says "sure, go ahead".

LE takes the shirt and the dog down to the lake...and BOOM dog indicates to the handler that his scent is indeed at the lake. (Assuming the dog can do this).

Now Uncle Fred has some explaining to do. Is it enough to prove guilt? NOPE...but it's enough to put pressure on Fred to say "we can prove you're lying about not being at the lake" and let the heat begin.

I'm not saying the dogs could ever prove innocence or guilt...I'm just saying I'm pretty confident that the dog can prove Uncle Fred was there when he says he wasn't.

All the dogs can confirm is that Uncle Fred's scent was there. That's it.

There are plenty of ways to lay down scent, including dragging around his sweaty old singlet or walking around in his shoes.

 

[iamnotagolem]

The girls were never confirmed to have actually got to the lake though...following this theory they should have preserved half of Evansdale.

Here is a link to the "bible" of missing children investigations, per the FBI. This is the blue print that law enforcement is taught to follow, and Black Hawk County followed it to a T. They cannot be faulted.

Don't forget, it's only hindsight that told them that the girls were indeed abducted...at the stage they were reported they could easily have still been at a friends house or stuck in a tree somewhere.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51536616/FBI-Child-Abduction-Response-Plan

The bikes were found at the lake, they weren't found all over Evansdale. Once the bikes were found and the girls were not with them, IMO the scene should have been blocked off to all non qualified personnel.

You say they could have still been at a friends? So in their frantic searching for the girls that afternoon, their friends were never called or checked with? The girls would never go to the lake but that is the first place they checked?

They went to the lake but didn't walk around it? It was searched until LE got there an hour later? Instincts say go to the lake, but ended there?

I'm not directing this at you, just questions that can't be answered that frustrate me. :banghead:

 

[SapphireSteel]

The bikes were found at the lake, they weren't found all over Evansdale. Once the bikes were found and the girls were not with them, IMO the scene should have been blocked off to all non qualified personnel.

You say they could have still been at a friends? So in their frantic searching for the girls that afternoon, their friends were never called or checked with? The girls would never go to the lake but that is the first place they checked?

They went to the lake but didn't walk around it? It was searched until LE got there an hour later? Instincts say go to the lake, but ended there?

I'm not directing this at you, just questions that can't be answered that frustrate me. :banghead:

IAMAG, you are singing to the choir. I feel the exact same way.

I believe they did cordon off the lake for a time, in fact IIRC they had a deputy posted 24 hours the entire time it was draining.

Abben's little speech seemed to indicate a possibility the girls ever even got to the lake, in the first place...but somehow, their bikes and purse did.

It's wierd all right.

 

[threecrazykids]

All the dogs can confirm is that Uncle Fred's scent was there. That's it.

There are plenty of ways to lay down scent, including dragging around his sweaty old singlet or walking around in his shoes.

I don't disagree at all :rocker:. My point in all of this is that in the case of any suspect, IF the FBI/LE had handled the scene differently they could have preserved any potential contamination of scents by anyone who said they weren't there (or hadn't been) any time recently.

IF the FBI had reason to suspect Uncle Fred a couple days later they shot themselves in the foot by letting him come into the area and "help search" after the bikes were found as it then puts his scent all over the scene when 2 days prior there would have been no reason for it to be there if he said he hadn't been at the lake recently.

 

[threecrazykids]

IAMAG, you are singing to the choir. I feel the exact same way.

I believe they did cordon off the lake for a time, in fact IIRC they had a deputy posted 24 hours the entire time it was draining.

Abben's little speech seemed to indicate a possibility the girls ever even got to the lake, in the first place...but somehow, their bikes and purse did.

It's wierd all right.

According to aunt Tammy the family was allowed back into the wooded area that evening of finding the bikes. She said they'd taped the area off and was searching the area for "about 3 hours" and once the tape was removed the family went back in to do their own investigation. They were searching for any evidence. Including Dan and Dillon riding the quad around to search.

So, I'm not certain just how long the entire area was under watch by a deputy but we know the trail portion where the bikes were found were.

I also find it disheartening that the family was pleading with LE that this was an abduction - yet LE didn't appear to treat it as one for a week (or at least classify it as one).

Hindsight is 20/20, that's for sure. I wonder what LE could have done differently had they known the girls were abducted right from the moment the bikes were found (say, a clear sign of struggle).:banghead:

 

[foxbluff]

This may very well be the first day I have ever agreed w/everything a poster has said.

This is very simply my tribute to ThreeCrazyKids who, IMO, has kept this thread moving (and interesting) all day in spite of us not having any "news" to debate.

And, this is my tribute for her having "stuck to her guns" against, seemingly to me, all odds:

GO ThreeCrazyKids !! :woohoo:

 

[otto]

^^^^
Yes! I see it as valuable for an interrogation technique, if not for use as proof in court.

"We KNOW you were at the lake! The dogs found your scent right by the girls' bikes!!" -- could very easily cause a suspect to crumble.

And other posters will just have to agree to disagree with me whether there was a suspect. Because I'm not folding on that. To me it is OBVIOUS there was a suspect in those early days.

I must have missed that. Do you have link?

 

[SapphireSteel]

According to aunt Tammy the family was allowed back into the wooded area that evening of finding the bikes. She said they'd taped the area off and was searching the area for "about 3 hours" and once the tape was removed the family went back in to do their own investigation. They were searching for any evidence. Including Dan and Dillon riding the quad around to search.

So, I'm not certain just how long the entire area was under watch by a deputy but we know the trail portion where the bikes were found were.

I also find it disheartening that the family was pleading with LE that this was an abduction - yet LE didn't appear to treat it as one for a week (or at least classify it as one).

Hindsight is 20/20, that's for sure. I wonder what LE could have done differently had they known the girls were abducted right from the moment the bikes were found (say, a clear sign of struggle).:banghead:

No, they didn't.

Is that because they were being slack beyond belief, or was it because it was immediately obvious (for some reason unknown by us) that the girls never actually made it to the lake, and that this wasn't a random event?

I remember how insistent the FBI were that the girls were still alive. Where did this insistence come from? It has never been explained.

There is too much we don't know. Some think we don't know because LE doesn't know, but personally I think they have an extremely good idea as to suspects etc, and have been working quietly all along to that end.

The 110 house blitz tends to confirm this in my mind, as does the glaring difference in procedure when compared to say, Jessica Ridgeway.

:dunno:

 

[threecrazykids]

This may very well be the first day I have ever agreed w/everything a poster has said.

This is very simply my tribute to ThreeCrazyKids who, IMO, has kept this thread moving (and interesting) all day in spite of us not having any "news" to debate.

And, this is my tribute for her having "stuck to her guns" against, seemingly to me, all odds:

GO ThreeCrazyKids !! :woohoo:

Thank you for your kind words. I simply hate to see the thread sit quiet for too long.

The more we talk the more ideas and brainstorming we can do. We never know what each days ideas could bring.

Every day I wake up and pray for a break in the case...maybe tomorrow!lease:

 

[SapphireSteel]

There is just not much left to chew over.

Sad.

 

[threecrazykids]

There is just not much left to chew over.

Sad.

I know!:banghead: I wish LE would throw us Sleuthers a bone already! :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[otto]

If police waited a week to decide that it was an abduction, why were the FBI already involved and on site by July 15?