Australia Samantha Murphy, 51, last seen leaving her property to go for a run in the Canadian State Forest, Ballarat, 4 Feb 2024 *Arrest* #12

[SouthAussie]

Hmmm....

"Criminal psychologist Tim Watson-Munro
believes police are remaining overly tight-lipped for one reason –
they think someone else is involved.

Mr Watson-Munro told he believes another person was involved in the disposal of her phone at the dam,
as it was in good condition when it was found.

'Of all the dams in that district
on all the farms in that district
they happen to find it there,
and as I understand it,
pretty well preserved',
he said.

'Clearly,
this raises the likelihood of third-party involvement because by then the accused was in custody'.

The psychologist said police were likely withholding information in hopes of 'shaking' someone down.

'I suspect someone took the phone there
and police have intelligence on that.

Leaking or providing developments to the public is inevitably strategic',
he said."

Real reason mum’s body hasn’t been found

As yet another police search for Samatha Murphy’s body comes to a close, the community of Ballarat – as well as the rest of Australia – are demanding answers more than ever before.

www-news-com-au.cdn.ampproject.org

'Of all the dams in that district on all the farms in that district they happen to find it there, and as I understand it, pretty well preserved', he said.

Where did Mr Tim Watson-Munro think the police would find the phone? Does he have a preconceived notion?
(Google will tell you more about him.)

Does he think that someone else dumped the phone there, then tipped the police where it is, but they still needed to take along a technology dog because they wouldn't see it laying there, exposed in the dried mud?

 

[Rocket333]

Thanks for that Drsleuth. It seems like, dependent on training, these cadavar dogs could find Samantha down a mine.

From what I’m reading it seems quite possible as they latch on to, and follow the smell of decay which can travel & stick & spread.
In a doco I watched, during the search the cadaver dogs missed the body that was buried beneath them. The body was later dug up, and it had been chopped up in pieces and wrapped in disposable nappies which helped to contain the decay and smell.
So environmental conditions and how the body is arranged or interned would factor into it.
Nevertheless this week, after 2 or 3 (?) days of full on searching for Sam the dogs found nothing? No wafts of anything?
How exasperating to have such a huge search op, which is suggestive of a strong lead, with no result. VicPol must get so frustrated. No wonder they were dancing at the dam.

 

[mrjitty]

I'd highly recommend the book No Stone Unturned about the difficulty of uncovering bodies in the wilderness. The main issue is always the size of the area to cover - especially if a body is in a shallow grave or concealed somehow.

Tech does help but is expensive. Short version, a manager being asked to authorise 5 or 6 figure expenditures on new searches is not going to do so without good intel to justify it. Everything has to come out of a budget somewhere, and big expensive searches which come up empty can look bad.

So while I agree dogs could find the victim, without knowing where to look, at least within a specific grid, is likely to be a shot in the dark.

 

[mrjitty]

'Of all the dams in that district on all the farms in that district they happen to find it there, and as I understand it, pretty well preserved', he said.

Where did Mr Tim Watson-Munro think the police would find the phone? Does he have a preconceived notion?
(Google will tell you more about him.)

Does he think that someone else dumped the phone there, then tipped the police where it is, but they still needed to take along a technology dog because they wouldn't see it laying there, exposed in the dried mud?

I ignore most of these go to crime experts - most of the time they know nothing about the case in the first place. On a recent and highly publicised drowning case in the UK a some of them engaged in wild and unfounded speculation.

 

[marv hucker]

Shortened by me. Does anyone have any info on exactly how far away the cadaver dogs are able to pinpoint where a body may be, as far as distance above and below ground goes? I really know nothing about these dogs, does anyone have any knowledge they'd like to share? (Yes, I really should google)

Would love to see solid data on their effectiveness.

 

[SouthAussie]

Would love to see solid data on their effectiveness.

There are a whole bunch of studies out there about it. I googled "effectiveness of cadaver dogs" and got a lot of results. Here are bits from a few I looked at.

In one trial conducted with cadaver dogs (8 dogs and handlers) with known cadaver artifacts buried .... The recovery rate per trial ranged between 55 and 95% and the overall recovery rate in the field trials was 81% .... the recovery rates were found to be reduced when the dogs were introduced to dry old human bones Link

Another study (two dogs) .... Our results revealed that well trained dogs were able to detect human cadaveric blood samples even when very low concentrations of blood were stored in the tubes Link

And another study (someone's thesis) found that handler bias could affect the results in cadaver dog trials .... as the dog may look to its handler for cues, or sense its handlers attitude about whether it was or was not going to find anything and get a reward.
This thesis also said that one cadaver dog can be as good as 20-30 human searchers. Link

About bodies in water ..... "I have seen dogs locate bodies within a metre and they have been quite accurate in depths of about 15 metres of water." Link