Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Karmaa]

You really think LE would risk ruining a case by making up a false positive?

Absolutely not! But you have to understand that IF this was done the way I theorized, there is no chance that the case would be ruined. NONE.

The supreme court has consistently held that during the INVESTIGATIVE part of a case, LE is not required to be 100% honest. They are only restricted from coercing. In cases where Search warrants were illegally obtained, the court has held that any evidence found is usable. It is specifically not considered fruit of the poisoned tree. (it's more complicated than that, and there are exceptions, but I am giving you the short and sweet version.)

There is NO WAY to prove if this was done, unless the handler were to come out and say that they did it. Canines can have false positives. There would be no way to prove that the handler didn't somehow coach the dog to hit, and there would be no way to prove that LE wanted it done. The only danger would be id LE did it too often, but the exact situation that would suggest this trick doesn't come up too often.

Note: I am NOT saying this is how it was done. I am NOT saying that dog handlers are unethical. I am not saying that LE is bad (even if they did this). I am just pointing out why it would be completely riskless to the integrity of the case.

 

[Whisperer]

Thank you! This is what I have been saying all along. It's nice to have validation. Which is exactly what we DONT have on the dog hit.

Are you saying that the dog hit was a good piece of evidence, just part of the puzzle or are you saying it was no good at all...because you don't have more dogs hitting.

 

[Donjeta]

Absolutely not! But you have to understand that IF this was done the way I theorized, there is no chance that the case would be ruined. NONE.

The supreme court has consistently held that during the INVESTIGATIVE part of a case, LE is not required to be 100% honest. They are only restricted from coercing. In cases where Search warrants were illegally obtained, the court has held that any evidence found is usable. It is specifically not considered fruit of the poisoned tree. (it's more complicated than that, and there are exceptions, but I am giving you the short and sweet version.)

There is NO WAY to prove if this was done, unless the handler were to come out and say that they did it. Canines can have false positives. There would be no way to prove that the handler didn't somehow coach the dog to hit, and there would be no way to prove that LE wanted it done. The only danger would be id LE did it too often, but the exact situation that would suggest this trick doesn't come up too often.

Note: I am NOT saying this is how it was done. I am NOT saying that dog handlers are unethical. I am not saying that LE is bad (even if they did this). I am just pointing out why it would be completely riskless to the integrity of the case.

I think the hit could be a source of reasonable doubt if there is a trial one day in which the prosecutor's theory is that Lisa died somewhere away from that house. The defense attorneys could try to spin it so that their client didn't do it, someone in that home did.

 

[Whisperer]

Absolutely not! But you have to understand that IF this was done the way I theorized, there is no chance that the case would be ruined. NONE.

The supreme court has consistently held that during the INVESTIGATIVE part of a case, LE is not required to be 100% honest. They are only restricted from coercing. In cases where Search warrants were illegally obtained, the court has held that any evidence found is usable. It is specifically not considered fruit of the poisoned tree. (it's more complicated than that, and there are exceptions, but I am giving you the short and sweet version.)

There is NO WAY to prove if this was done, unless the handler were to come out and say that they did it. Canines can have false positives. There would be no way to prove that the handler didn't somehow coach the dog to hit, and there would be no way to prove that LE wanted it done. The only danger would be id LE did it too often, but the exact situation that would suggest this trick doesn't come up too often.

Note: I am NOT saying this is how it was done. I am NOT saying that dog handlers are unethical. I am not saying that LE is bad (even if they did this). I am just pointing out why it would be completely riskless to the integrity of the case.

You are not saying that LE is bad even though they falsified a sworn affidavit? I been befuddled and struggling o understand wth is going on. LE does a criminal act and they're not bad unless they do it more? Is that what I'm reading in the post?

 

[In da Middle]

Are you saying that the dog hit was a good piece of evidence, just part of the puzzle or are you saying it was no good at all...because you don't have more dogs hitting.

I am saying WE dont know what it means. So for right now it is just a POSSIBLE piece of the puzzle depending on if it was confirmed or not. WE dont know the answer to that.

 

[Whisperer]

I think the hit could be a source of reasonable doubt if there is a trial one day in which the prosecutor's theory is that Lisa died somewhere away from that house. The defense attorneys could try to spin it so that their client didn't do it, someone in that home did.

Where was George Anthony on Oct 3, 2011?

 

[cityslick]

I think the hit could be a source of reasonable doubt if there is a trial one day in which the prosecutor's theory is that Lisa died somewhere away from that house. The defense attorneys could try to spin it so that their client didn't do it, someone in that home did.

Of course, as of today there is no other evidence that supports the dog hit. No other evidence there was a crime committed in the house, no other evidence a baby died in the house, no other evidence it was DB who committed a crime in that house, etc, etc.

 

[Whisperer]

I am saying WE dont know what it means. So for right now it is just a POSSIBLE piece of the puzzle depending on if it was confirmed or not. WE dont know the answer to that.

OK, so you have not accepted it as a piece of the puzzle. There are no dots for you.
How many dogs will be needed for you to validate it?

 

[cityslick]

You don't know what the cadaver hit means? How many dogs will be needed to validate it?

People who actually work in the profession will tell you it's not a guarantee without supporting evidence. This isn't DNA we're talking about.

 

[cityslick]

OK, so you have not accepted it as a piece of the puzzle. There are no dots for you.
How many dogs will be needed for you to validate it?

Everyone loves to refer to the Anthony case.

How many dogs hit on the car trunk? How many times was it hit?

How about the backyard?

 

[highflyer]

Absolutely not! But you have to understand that IF this was done the way I theorized, there is no chance that the case would be ruined. NONE.

The supreme court has consistently held that during the INVESTIGATIVE part of a case, LE is not required to be 100% honest. They are only restricted from coercing. In cases where Search warrants were illegally obtained, the court has held that any evidence found is usable. It is specifically not considered fruit of the poisoned tree. (it's more complicated than that, and there are exceptions, but I am giving you the short and sweet version.)

There is NO WAY to prove if this was done, unless the handler were to come out and say that they did it. Canines can have false positives. There would be no way to prove that the handler didn't somehow coach the dog to hit, and there would be no way to prove that LE wanted it done. The only danger would be id LE did it too often, but the exact situation that would suggest this trick doesn't come up too often.

Note: I am NOT saying this is how it was done. I am NOT saying that dog handlers are unethical. I am not saying that LE is bad (even if they did this). I am just pointing out why it would be completely riskless to the integrity of the case.

The idea that LE would do this in this case paints everything else they do in regards to Lisa Irwin evidence collection with a dirty brush. Sounds like someone wanting to taint the evidence collection and cast a queer eye towards law enforcement in this case.

 

[Donjeta]

Of course, as of today there is no other evidence that supports the dog hit. No other evidence there was a crime committed in the house, no other evidence a baby died in the house, no other evidence it was DB who committed a crime in that house, etc, etc.

Do you think we are privy to all the evidence?
Clearly there is not enough for an arrest but there could be something that points to DB or somebody else who had access to the house. Or not.

If there was no crime committed in that house, where do you suppose Lisa went? JMO but Lisa seems too small to have disappeared from her crib on her own devices.

 

[Karmaa]

..it's enough for probable cause and it's enough for most to believe there was a cadaver in the home. They need more because people want to see more evidence and there are too many skeptics when it comes to dogs.

This doesn't meant the dog was wrong...it just means people are not open to dogs' abilities in a court of law as we just witnessed in the Anthony Case. It appears we have similar types right here.

I stand by the FBI well-trained dog.

I have no idea who you are talking about. Not one single person in this conversation has said that they don't believe in dogs. I personally happen to have done a lot of research on them, and I KNOW what they can do. And if I were looking for someone, I would call an experienced dog handler in a New York minute. I have a LOT of respect for them. And as far as I can tell, most other posters feel similarly.

 

[yllek]

Imo, we don't know all of the evidence LE has gathered and its signifigance to the case. We know what was put forth in the search warrant affidavit, but that is the minimal required to show probably cause to do a search - it may well not be everything. Plus, circumstantial evidence is very important too. We don't know what LE has learned in their investigation and interviews and who they consider key witnesses.

We can only analyze and speculate about what has been made public by the parents, LE, the attorneys, MSM, court documents, and other witnesses. It's a puzzle and we have some pieces. LE and those involved in the case likely have more pieces than we do. Right now, the only person(s) that can solve the puzzle with certainty is the guilty party(s).

So, we keep on sleuthin'...

 

[cityslick]

Do you think we are privy to all the evidence?
Clearly there is not enough for an arrest but there could be something that points to DB or somebody else who had access to the house. Or not.

If there was no crime committed in that house, where do you suppose Lisa went? JMO but Lisa seems too small to have disappeared from her crib on her own devices.

Here is what I think. I think I only know there is a dog hit and nothing else. I also think that LE and the FBI must not be fully confident of BL dead in the house since they were following up on tips on the east coast after the dog hit happened.

 

[Donjeta]

Everyone loves to refer to the Anthony case.

How many dogs hit on the car trunk? How many times was it hit?

How about the backyard?

JMO but there is one significant difference between the Anthony case and this one that should be remembered. Florida has the sunshine laws and there are boatloads of documents of all the evidence that was collected. It has imo possibly created an expectation that if there are no mountains of PDF's there must be no evidence.

But if I understand correctly the MO police do not have to release information about an ongoing investigation.

So, there could have been several hits or none, we have no way of knowing unless LE wants to give a presser and tell us, which they haven't done lately.

 

[In da Middle]

OK, so you have not accepted it as a piece of the puzzle. There are no dots for you.
How many dogs will be needed for you to validate it?

More than 1 just like anybody in the profession would also require. Then whatever it hit upon would need to be tested and/or questioned.

 

[In da Middle]

Everyone loves to refer to the Anthony case.

How many dogs hit on the car trunk? How many times was it hit?

How about the backyard?

Exactly!! More than ONE.

 

[Salem]

Thread has gone to the dogs...

Well yes, it appears it has. So why don't we all get back on track?

If I remember correctly, LE did pull carpet out of that house. Maybe someone can find a link or the video? I think it was in a video or a picture - showed them all looking at the carpet in the driveway.

Salem

 

[cityslick]

JMO but there is one significant difference between the Anthony case and this one that should be remembered. Florida has the sunshine laws and there are boatloads of documents of all the evidence that was collected. It has imo possibly created an expectation that if there are no mountains of PDF's there must be no evidence.

But if I understand correctly the MO police do not have to release information about an ongoing investigation.

So, there could have been several hits or none, we have no way of knowing unless LE wants to give a presser and tell us, which they haven't done lately.

I understand, but is the inference that there must be more evidence hence a cadaver was definetely in that house? Isn't that just straight up guessing at this point?