Searchers and the Motion Regarding TES

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
A search, even with dogs, and even with professional searchers, does not mean there was no body.

From the chapter, Levels of Certainty and Conclusions Reached (The Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains)
No one can ever be 100% certain that a negative search means the deceased is not in the search area. Multiple variables exist, including but certainly not limited to the handler, the dog, the terrain, the weather, the time since presumed death, and the physical features of the missing person.

Handler/dog teams differ. A handler may misread a dog or fail to see a partial alert or area of interest because of ground cover or foliage. A dog may not be working well. This is often obvious to the handler, but at other times it may be missed. A physical ailment may cause a dog to skip an area because of the terrain. A dog that has traveled a long distance may fail to acclimate and will not search well.

The effects of terrain on search outcome are discussed in detail in other chapters. It is always important to remember that soil type will affect the search. Sandy soil is more likely to permit scent escape than is clay. Dry soil will permit scent escape more than wet soil. Steep terrain will interfere with search patterns and may provide areas seemingly inaccessible. heavy growth, particularly brambles may prevent a dog from searching an area. These types of secondary growth can occur over a very short time and may well not have been present when and if a body was buried on the site.

Weather is also discussed in detail in other chapters. Suffice it to say that temperature, humidity, wind direction and speed and barometric pressure can affect the outcome of a search. Heat is particularly debilitating to dogs and may further affect the search by promoting exhaustion and dehydration...snipped

The physical characteristics of the missing individual include sex, height, weight, and degree of condition. A large, obese person is going to provide a greater scent pool. Infants, on the other hand, have little tissue and the scent source will be lost
Anyone who doubts that Caylee wasn't out on Suburban before the hurricane left the location,and Caylee, underwater needs to reread the autopsy and entomology reports. All of the bags contained dirt, fine sand and silt. Except for bones found with the bags and skull, most of the bones were under muck and leaves. Before the rain came through and left Caylee underwater, INSECTS had invaded the hair mat. Insect cases and dead pupa (maggots) were found in the dirt on Suburban under and around Caylee's bones. The scattering of the bones and the insect infestation had to happen before that area was underwater, while Caylee was decomposing and before skeletonization. Different carrion-eating insects prefer bodies in different stages of decomposition.

As Tim Miller said, a two year-old body in an area like central Florida is a needle in a haystack. As the cadaver dog training handbook pointed out, there is no guarantee that a cleared area, even an area searched by a good cadaver dog, doesn't have a body. The odds were against Caylee ever being found.

Autopsy Report; http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf

Forensic Entomology Report:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf

imo
 
But we did put a lot of faith in those searchers at the time even though we knew they were searching on their own
Yes, and these volunteers are owed a big thanks. But my point is the fact that one (or more) searched the area in question on their own and without the knowledge of TES is not sufficeint reason to accuse TES of being in non-compliance or try to force TES to release personal information of all of the volunteers.
 
Caylee's remains were so close to the road, I don't think anyone was even thinking about searching that close to the road. Why would they when they were most likely expecting KC would have taken her further into the wooded area.
I'm guessing that more than one searcher probably walked right past the remains and never even noticed them. Kind of like not seeing the forest for the trees...or hiding in plain site. Who would've noticed? Apparently no one but Roy Kronk. jmo
 
A search, even with dogs, does not mean there was no body.

From the chapter, Levels of Certainty and Conclusions Reached (The Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains)

No one can ever be 100% certain that a negative search means the deceased is not in the search area. Multiple variables exist, including but certainly not limited to the handler, the dog, the terrain, the weather, the time since presumed death, and the physical features of the missing person.


Forensic Entomology Report:
http://www.clickorlando.com/download/2009/1106/21539770.pdf

imo​


snipped for space.
Great post, Jolynna! Thanks for giving us this info. It's absolutely right. A cadaver dog can miss finding a body, but once it 'hits', it's pretty likely that a body is or has been there. It's kind of like how you can have a false negative on a pregnancy test, but you'll basically never have a false positive. (if the hcg is there, you're pregnant).​
 
Would I be off base to think that maybe the defense is begging for a plea deal now? They are just doing it in a way that doesn't come right out and say they can't defend this case?

Oh, I think you are so close.....I also think we are very, very close to a doc dump (perhaps within 24 hours) judging by the flurry of Current News updates. Now Baez has filed a motion claiming Tim Miller lied in court???

Something is about to happen....
 
I think the prosecution will be able to document that the exact area was under water until just prior to Caylee being found.
 
from what I remember about JJ - he was an independent business man, who also ran a non-profit org which dealt with missing kids?? I remember googling him and finding his website, but not having much luck at the moment...
 
I think the prosecution will be able to document that the exact area was under water until just prior to Caylee being found.
Hi Suzi. do we know exactly how much of this area was under water? I am wondering how close they actually could have been. also what state was it in when Kronk saw caylee?
 
Hi Suzi. do we know exactly how much of this area was under water? I am wondering how close they actually could have been. also what state was it in when Kronk saw caylee?

IIRC. Nejame did a presentation not so long ago about the area being under water as a presser with regard to the prior motion. Photos were released that showed the extent of the water.

ETA: I am not convinced that Kronk saw the same bag in the same location each time he reported, he was either working on a hunch (or a daisy chain tip) and could have reported different trash he thought was it before seeing the correct bag --- unclear on if Kronk saw the SAME bag in the SAME location from Aug through Dec.
 
I'm expecting NeJame to make short work of this motion.
 
IIRC. Nejame did a presentation not so long ago about the area being under water as a presser with regard to the prior motion. Photos were released that showed the extent of the water.

ETA: I am not convinced that Kronk saw the same bag in the same location each time he reported, he was either working on a hunch (or a daisy chain tip) and could have reported different trash he thought was it before seeing the correct bag --- unclear on if Kronk saw the SAME bag in the SAME location from Aug through Dec.
I would think the odds of that would be astronomical.

Do you know how deep it was? Sorry I cannot recall. I will look it up but thought perhaps you might know offhand.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,478445,00.html
Casey Anthony Attends Court Hearing
Friday, January 09, 2009
On the Record w/ Greta
VAN SUSTEREN: In terms of the search that Equusearch did, do you know if Equusearch searched the area where, ultimately, the remains of Caylee were found?
MILLER: We most definitely did search that area, Greta. And the first time we were there — of course, you know, we got there the very beginning of September, and that was right after Tropical Storm Fay came in, and the water was so high and — and I got a lot of criticism when I suspended the
search because I said, You know what? I'm afraid that little body's under the water.
.........
November, we went back and we searched that area again. And at the area — because I physically went to the area the day that Caylee's body was found. And that area again in November, when we searched it, that exact area where Caylee was at was under water still.
.........
And the land owner adjacent to where Caylee's body was found stated his own self that approximately a week-and-a-half before Caylee's body was found is when the water level went down to the point that you may have been able to see something back there.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4477281&postcount=150"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Joy W. is the "mystery" witness for the defense?[/ame]
 
Joseph Jordan was posting as Firesweep and was very active from 8/3 to 12/28/08 posting (apparently not just on WS), searching and organinzing searches, contacting the media (seems someone at Fox was his contact), trying to get Suburban Dr. renamed for Caylee, etc. You can pull up all his posts if you go to his profile. I did and the only one that I can find that relates to TES and I assume the search on Suburban Dr. was on 9/9/08.
09-09-2008, 09:48 PM
Firesweep
Joseph S. Jordan Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cagney
Joe! Hi and thanks for everything you are doing!!! I will keep you and the rest of the searchers in my prayers along with Little Caylee!
If I was in FL I would be there every day searching right along with you!!

I have a question regarding the TES search- are they done period or just for the time being?

We were told they are coming back when they receive credible more definite tips from the family or the water recedes
 
I am so NOT concerned with these "searchers" because unless they have received training in search methods or at least formal briefing from credentialed professionals.....their testimony will be nothing more than a "he said / she said". 25 old men with metal detectors could walk a Florida beach looking for jewelry. Just because a few pass by the gold watch doesn't mean it wasn't there as they scanned the sand. Semantics......all it is.......oh and......perspective.


Thanks for posting this, sleuther. These are key points:

1) training and experience of the searchers,

2) whether it was an official, organized search, or people going off on their own, and

3) whether it was a full, unhampered search, or if water interfered.

ETA:
But by her own testimony( http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html ), Laura B admits that "4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own."
 
Caylee's remains were so close to the road, I don't think anyone was even thinking about searching that close to the road. Why would they when they were most likely expecting KC would have taken her further into the wooded area.
I'm guessing that more than one searcher probably walked right past the remains and never even noticed them. Kind of like not seeing the forest for the trees...or hiding in plain site. Who would've noticed? Apparently no one but Roy Kronk. jmo

Caylee's remains were only 20 feet from the road, but it's important to note that her remains were down a 4 ft to 10 ft slope.

That slope is part of what obscured her remains, along with the hanging vines, dense vegetation, etc, and explains the accumulation of the water there from the flooding.
 
I am once again befuddled at a defense motion. Excuse me, but if my memory recalls correctly, MN and Tim said, "Sure you can have access to ALL the files, AT our office". They in good faith turned over the 32 that they had documented that had searched that area. They offered up their files, with the stipulation that their viewing be done at their offices in their presence.

Am I wrong? Mr. Miller and his counsel have bent over backwards for these people at the risk of future volunteers. Gheez! This is just another duplicate, triplicate, frivolous motion to distract.

:banghead::banghead:
 
Caylee's remains were only 20 feet from the road, but it's important to note that her remains were down a 4 ft to 10 ft slope.

That slope is part of what obscured her remains, along with the hanging vines, dense vegetation, etc, and explains the accumulation of the water there from the flooding.

Four to ten feet is quite a difference... do you have a link to the actual sloping? TIA
 
Caylee's remains were only 20 feet from the road, but it's important to note that her remains were down a 4 ft to 10 ft slope.

That slope is part of what obscured her remains, along with the hanging vines, dense vegetation, etc, and explains the accumulation of the water there from the flooding.

It was a runoff area for the road and never completely dried out. Searchers would more likely move quickly inward to look, who would expect the remains to be tucked in so close to the road!!!! TES nearly lost an ATV in the water.

The science speaks volumes about the scattered remains and plant life but the question is, will the Jury relate better to eyewitness testimony (based on false memories of exact location) or science? The science completely debunks these claims IMO.
 
I am once again befuddled at a defense motion. Excuse me, but if my memory recalls correctly, MN and Tim said, "Sure you can have access to ALL the files, AT our office". They in good faith turned over the 32 that they had documented that had searched that area. They offered up their files, with the stipulation that their viewing be done at their offices in their presence.

Am I wrong? Mr. Miller and his counsel have bent over backwards for these people at the risk of future volunteers. Gheez! This is just another duplicate, triplicate, frivolous motion to distract.

:banghead::banghead:

IMO the point is not access to the TES records per se but to make a key point in the media.

JB never ever picked up or processed the tipline records he made multiple motions on, likewise he will never review TES records --- he wants to discredit LE investigations and discredit TES searches/records. Perceptions to taint the Jury pool.
 
Four to ten feet is quite a difference... do you have a link to the actual sloping? TIA

Yep, thanks to great research and documentation by our WSers in one of our threads, which I just happened to have been digging through a couple weeks ago looking for something else lol.

I'll ferret out the pertinent links in the morning, and post them in this thread.

ETA: Well it was easier to find than I expected :-)

Crime Scene Photos #3 thread: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77477"]Crime Scene Photos #3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Start around post #610, noting where there's discussion of the topography of the area. You get visuals (maps, pics) to go with the discussion, which are very helpful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
697
Total visitors
837

Forum statistics

Threads
606,805
Messages
18,211,422
Members
233,967
Latest member
tammyb1025
Back
Top