WA WA - Shantina Smiley, 29, & Azriel Carver, 8 (fnd deceased), Olympia, Mar 2010 - #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Azriel and his mother went missing March 14 after the van they were driving from Silverdale to Castle Rock was found partially submerged in Budd Inlet near Olympia.

Mealy said the sheriff’s office will continue following up on leads, but the working theory is that Smiley went into the water and like her son, will be found eventually.

“We searched as much as we can search,” he said. “We’re just going to have to wait for her to resurface.”

Mealy said that he suspects Smiley willingly drove onto the beach during low tide and that she and Azriel then went into the water. He said he doesn’t know why they would get into the water, whether it was accidental or on purpose.

Mealy said there are no signs that a crime was committed.
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/ckr/news/89305097.html

Yes, it is sad to think of, but she will have to surface, as the police Lt. has said. : (
 
If Shantina is dead and the body isn't found for a while (weeks or months even) would an autopsy/tox screen accurately show whether or how much she drank that night?

I know from Caylee's case that if there's still some soft tissue, they can get tox screens, and that sometimes they can get tox screens from hair. And that's the sum total of my knowledge.

So far as chances of soft tissue being left, I believe a body immersed in cold water decomposes less rapidly, however, there would be, e.g., fish activity. What that means in terms of how long one might expect an average adult female in those specific waters to still have soft tissue, I have no idea. There could be some info out on the net to give some idea.

eyes4crime could probably give us some information regarding alcohol and certain drugs and dissipation rates or that sort of thing. IIRC, eyes4crime is a pharmacist.
 
Azriel and his mother went missing March 14 after the van they were driving from Silverdale to Castle Rock was found partially submerged in Budd Inlet near Olympia.

Mealy said the sheriff’s office will continue following up on leads, but the working theory is that Smiley went into the water and like her son, will be found eventually.

“We searched as much as we can search,” he said. “We’re just going to have to wait for her to resurface.”

Mealy said that he suspects Smiley willingly drove onto the beach during low tide and that she and Azriel then went into the water. He said he doesn’t know why they would get into the water, whether it was accidental or on purpose.

Mealy said there are no signs that a crime was committed.
http://www.pnwlocalnews.com/kitsap/ckr/news/89305097.html

Yes, it is sad to think of, but she will have to surface, as the police Lt. has said. : (

Oh I hadn't seen that, SMK. Thank you for posting it.

Very, very sad.
 
Some interesting links I found related to drowning, and forensic toxicology.

http://sfkillers.com/?p=956

The internal examination, in addition to a search for the findings associated with drowning, must include detailed microscopy to determine the nature, extent and stage of antecedent disease. (Mant at p301)

A diagnosis of drowning cannot be made without a complete autopsy and full toxicologic screening, histologic analyses of all organs including the lungs, and the diatom test. The diagnosis of drowning cannot be based solely on the circumstances of the death, nonspecific anatomic findings, and the results of biologic analyses. (Payne-James, Busuittil and Smock at p250)

In the absence of eyewitness accounts, it is difficult if not impossible to differentiate the cases in which the victim falls into the water already dead from those in which death occurs after the fall into the water - Knight 1991. (Payne-James, Busuttil and Smock at p 250)

No pathognomic findings have been found in other organs during autopsy related to drowning. (Payne-James, Busuttil and Smock at p 252)

http://netk.net.au/Reports/DiagnosticsOfDrowning.asp

Diatoms are aquatic unicellular plants with around 100'000 species. Usually used to determine the quality of water.

If a person drowns water will flow into the lung. During the respiration, diatoms are able to slip through the lung into the blood. As soon the diatoms are in the blood stream, they travel through the system. From the lungs into the heart, to the liver, kidney, bone marrow, brain and so on.

This process only can happen if the person still is alive at the time of being in the water. The drowning process can take several minutes, especially if the person is conscious.

There comes the significance of the diatoms. Diatoms should only be found in bodies which where alive of the time of being in water.

http://www.svazi.com/v1/forensic/diat_use_in_for.htm

http://www.apsu.edu/oconnort/3210/3210lect05.htm

http://www.abarbour.net/vlibft.html
 
I read on a site that opening season for Yachting and boating will begin the first weekend in May, with many, many boats and much water activity there. And that this in itself may cause Shantina to surface or be found.
 
I think she's gone, but not in the water. I think she was waiting for someone and wanted to shed her "life" and move on. She drove around and waited until Azriel fell asleep, so it was easier for her to do what she needed to do...she met "someone" (planned) and whoever it was told her where to go to get to the beach (which she couldn't have found on her own, sober or drunk)...she only asked directions from others as a distraction and an alibi (on tape...she knew she would get caught on videotape) IMHO.

I'm so sorry Azriel...this should have never happened to you.

Marlou
 
I think she's gone, but not in the water. I think she was waiting for someone and wanted to shed her "life" and move on. She drove around and waited until Azriel fell asleep, so it was easier for her to do what she needed to do...she met "someone" (planned) and whoever it was told her where to go to get to the beach (which she couldn't have found on her own, sober or drunk)...she only asked directions from others as a distraction and an alibi (on tape...she knew she would get caught on videotape) IMHO.

I'm so sorry Azriel...this should have never happened to you.

Marlou

I don't see her being on the videos as an alibi. When I am in those stores, I do not even think about being on their videos. If she was smart enough to think of that as an alibi, she would have been smart enough to know her wandering store to store to restaurant to private home would lead LE to have many questions about her actions. If she was planning to murder (or even just abandon Azriel) and disappear into a new life, the last thing she would want would be to intentionally leave a trail such as she did. IMO, whatever happened that night was not a planned event.
 
IIRC it was stated in an article or by LE that the van was submerged up to the top of the seats, or possibly higher. Would that make a difference in using the car to get a scent?

This KIRO article says that it "appears the water went no higher than the top of the seats."

That would complicate things, I wouldn't want to use a swab then. I would however send someone with them to get a scent article if it wasn't practical for me to do it myself.
 
Oh, that is interesting!

Is only a single scent article generally used so as not to confuse the dog(s) in cases?

That is, if, from what we read in articles it appears a scent article was obtained from her home to use in tracking. Can we then deduce that they probably did not also use the car as a scent article?

And thank you for taking our questions! :)

Correct, you'd only use one at a time, and whoever collected the article should be there when starting as well so that person can be "eliminated" and the dog knows what scent to follow.
You can and do use different articles with different dogs at times for helping to ensure a clean SA.
 
I don't see her being on the videos as an alibi. When I am in those stores, I do not even think about being on their videos. If she was smart enough to think of that as an alibi, she would have been smart enough to know her wandering store to store to restaurant to private home would lead LE to have many questions about her actions. If she was planning to murder (or even just abandon Azriel) and disappear into a new life, the last thing she would want would be to intentionally leave a trail such as she did. IMO, whatever happened that night was not a planned event.

You don't think of being on videos because you are not looking to be seen on video.

Why would someone be so "lost" yet so close to their destination but make it be known that there was an accident...or falling down or running over the curb, and not only once? I've been lost before, but not to the point that I was driving around for hours in the same area only to "not" find my destination. I don't think she could have been drunk enough to drive on that unlit road...I think someone directed her. She needed to buy some time and she needed an excuse (the bottle of wine)...again, this is my opinion...just strange that there is such a large gap of time ... she left between 4 & 5 p.m. (supposedly), but didn't have the conscience to feed her eight-year-old son anything other than water and gum until Azriel was given a piece of pizza later that night (after she bought him dinner and left without him having a chance to eat it). I would feed my kids, no matter what hurry I was in.
 
All of this (the videos) makes her look drunk and points to an accident, which gives her an alibi...if she is never found, the LE will think she is lost in the water.
 
Sarx, so whereas it's not the best practice to have a family member obtain the scent items, it's still common practice?

Some statements have said the van was submerged, so that may be why they couldn't or didn't use it?

What's the impact of having family-obtained scent items, which may not be ideal, when the area to be searched is a van in water and a beach? (If the type of area matters).

Thank you!

It really depends on where you are and not only does it vary from state to state, but it can vary from county to county. Some dogs/handlers go through extreme amounts of training, others, IMO are very minimal. That is part of what makes it all so hard, there is no real standard that everyone must adhere to.
We learned the hard way about not collecting our own SA (scent article) 20 years ago, and know better, but I still hear about it all the time through other groups or read about it all over the nation and in my state as well.
The biggest concern here is that from a LE side if there is any possibility of a crime you don't want anyone affecting that search and having a family member retrieve it could do that just that if they were involved. This is a completely general statement not specific to this case but something that is a big issue. Some SAR groups are very focused on just SAR, others have been cross trained in LE aspects and others still are made up of strictly LE, there's a big span.
Where we're just talking about the water's edge, a dog should have no trouble going from the PLS (place last seen) which would presumably be the van in this case and picking up a trail on land. If however they went into the water and never made it back onto land a trailing/tracking dog is not going to be able to follow it in the water. Water cadaver dogs would be brought in if they thought they had drowned, but they bodies would have to still be there and in this case it sounds like they (at least the child) caught the current and was taken away.
Does that make sense?
 
You don't think of being on videos because you are not looking to be seen on video.

Why would someone be so "lost" yet so close to their destination but make it be known that there was an accident...or falling down or running over the curb, and not only once? I've been lost before, but not to the point that I was driving around for hours in the same area only to "not" find my destination. I don't think she could have been drunk enough to drive on that unlit road...I think someone directed her. She needed to buy some time and she needed an excuse (the bottle of wine)...again, this is my opinion...just strange that there is such a large gap of time ... she left between 4 & 5 p.m. (supposedly), but didn't have the conscience to feed her eight-year-old son anything other than water and gum until Azriel was given a piece of pizza later that night (after she bought him dinner and left without him having a chance to eat it). I would feed my kids, no matter what hurry I was in.

We don't know that Azriel wasn't fed.
 
Hi sarx, and thank you.

I'd asked some questions in response to BeanE's post a couple of pages back, and I have some more if you don't mind.

One of the articles posted cautioned against using shared items. The van belongs to RS, would that preclude them from it for scent? Also, the inside of the van was flooded (they had to wait for it to dry to obtain prints), would that be a reason why they wouldn't use the van for scent? Does it matter if the seats are cloth or leather/vinyl?

How long does scent last (on scene)? What are the effects of water, weather, etc.?

How can an item be contaminated other than smoke or contact? The protocol for obtaining items seems pretty detailed and specific (as posted above). In your experience, when family members are asked to retrieve a scent item, are they given this level of detailed instruction?

Can the shoe that was found beached and ID'd as Shantina's be used for scent?

Using shared items isn't a huge deal if the other person (RS in this case) is there, a scent specific trailing dog will take the scent with that person be told find the other one or may just figure it out on there own and head off to the other scent. In the event the other person isn't there and hasn't been in the area before then it should also be a none issue. When a shared article comes into bad play is when say you are going from the house of Joe and Mary. The shirt has been worn by both that you are using. Mary is the one you are looking for but Joe isn't home. Obviously because they both come and go from this location all the time the dog isn't going to know which one to look for.

I would not want to use seats that have been submerged as a place to swab for a scent article. If there was no other choice then sure, but it would be a last resort.
As far as vinyl/leather etc., you are swabing and wiping off tiny particles that make up the scent (think of micro dandruff), either surface will work. You can even swab the car door with gauze and get your article from that.

How long scent lasts really depends on a lot of factors, heat is your number one enemy. A damp cool environment is ideal. The scent holds to the ground, doesn't disperse and stays around for a long time. How long is long? 2 weeks is the oldest confirmed trail in a real search (in the pacific NW in a nice cool damp forest). We have run trails in practice just over a month old and had success. As time goes by the scent trail disperses and gets smaller. A trail under 3 days old should be easy for dogs in most situations, even in heat, rain, etc. As the trail gets older then external factors start to come into play. 5 days, still quite doable and high probability of being accurate. It starts to decline after that. We've done many a week old trail successful on real searches. We've also had many where the dog went for some time and then would lose the scent. There was another case where there has been a lot of discussion regarding trails as old as 6 months. I spent a lot of time on the phone with a lot of handlers over 3 states and none of us have ever heard or seen anything that would make me comfortable saying that this is something that can be done. I would certainly love to set up some trials for that and see what kind of accuracy we could get with these dogs that are reported to work cold trails. The biology and chemistry of scent just makes me awfully suspect of the liklihood of success. Keep in mind, this REALLY depends on where you live. In the desert you have a much shorter window, if it's damp/humid and cool or moderate the scent will last much longer. Blanket statements can't be made and don't trust them.

How much instruction someone is given really depends on who you're working with. When on mutual aid I've seen LE go with the family to help, I've seen then give a full on lesson of how to do it, I've also seen them just say "go grab something that was theirs".

If the shoe was confirmed to be hers and was not handled by a bunch of people (or if it was and they are still on scene) then yes, it could be used.

Did I get everything?
 
Using shared items isn't a huge deal if the other person (RS in this case) is there, a scent specific trailing dog will take the scent with that person be told find the other one or may just figure it out on there own and head off to the other scent. In the event the other person isn't there and hasn't been in the area before then it should also be a none issue. When a shared article comes into bad play is when say you are going from the house of Joe and Mary. The shirt has been worn by both that you are using. Mary is the one you are looking for but Joe isn't home. Obviously because they both come and go from this location all the time the dog isn't going to know which one to look for.

I would not want to use seats that have been submerged as a place to swab for a scent article. If there was no other choice then sure, but it would be a last resort.
As far as vinyl/leather etc., you are swabing and wiping off tiny particles that make up the scent (think of micro dandruff), either surface will work. You can even swab the car door with gauze and get your article from that.
Would the fact that it was RS's van make a difference? (assuming it could be used) I was kind of surprised to know you could use a car, because of how many different people could have (potentially) been in contact. Would it be safe to assume that the scent of the most recent occupant be the strongest? Or would that be the one who uses the vehicle most often?

How long scent lasts really depends on a lot of factors, heat is your number one enemy. A damp cool environment is ideal. The scent holds to the ground, doesn't disperse and stays around for a long time. How long is long? 2 weeks is the oldest confirmed trail in a real search (in the pacific NW in a nice cool damp forest). We have run trails in practice just over a month old and had success. As time goes by the scent trail disperses and gets smaller. A trail under 3 days old should be easy for dogs in most situations, even in heat, rain, etc. As the trail gets older then external factors start to come into play. 5 days, still quite doable and high probability of being accurate. It starts to decline after that. We've done many a week old trail successful on real searches. We've also had many where the dog went for some time and then would lose the scent. There was another case where there has been a lot of discussion regarding trails as old as 6 months. I spent a lot of time on the phone with a lot of handlers over 3 states and none of us have ever heard or seen anything that would make me comfortable saying that this is something that can be done. I would certainly love to set up some trials for that and see what kind of accuracy we could get with these dogs that are reported to work cold trails. The biology and chemistry of scent just makes me awfully suspect of the liklihood of success. Keep in mind, this REALLY depends on where you live. In the desert you have a much shorter window, if it's damp/humid and cool or moderate the scent will last much longer. Blanket statements can't be made and don't trust them.
In your opinion, given the conditions and general area, has too much time passed for LE to collect another scent item and try again? That nothing was picked up at all around the van seems a bit strange to me. It would appear that for that to be the case, both would've had to have floated into the water out the rear hatch of the van.

How much instruction someone is given really depends on who you're working with. When on mutual aid I've seen LE go with the family to help, I've seen then give a full on lesson of how to do it, I've also seen them just say "go grab something that was theirs".
Were the above quoted articles correct in their description of the proper protocol (gloves, no leaning over items, etc.)? Not that it's necessarily too complicated, but it does appear there's a specific protocol, and I don't know I'd trust someone without the specific training to obtain the items. I find it odd that they did, especially not knowing at that point if a crime had been committed.

If the shoe was confirmed to be hers and was not handled by a bunch of people (or if it was and they are still on scene) then yes, it could be used.

Did I get everything?

Yes, thank you :)

Another question, if you don't mind.

If a dog picks up a scent, do they in any way signal if there is another person's scent there too? For example, if Shantina were to have been taken away and the dog was able to pick up her scent, would they also have the scent of the person who abducted her? Is there any way to tell that she was not alone on that trail?
 
Oh, one more (I really appreciate your willingness to answer these questions).

Last night they brought blood hounds over, and took scent item.

That is what RS posted on his website. I took it to mean he brought the item to LE, because it wouldn't make sense for the handlers to bring the dogs up to Silverdale and return to Olympia. Do you try to keep the dogs away from areas that might confuse them (such as his house)? I know nothing about this, but common sense tells me you'd want to only bring the dogs to the spot you want to search.

If the shoe would have worked (after being in the water), what about items that were found in the van (like her wallet)? Why would the shoe have been ok as a scent item after being in the water, yet the van after being flooded would not be a good place to collect scent?
 
The scent of the most recent occupant will be the strongest. I'm assuming that RS was there, and the dogs would be able to eliminate him, even if the article was contaminated. Or... if he had never been there then they would go for her scent as it would be the only one available to follow. Not all dogs are trained to work on this kind of swabbing of the scent article and I suppose there could be some issue there, but they are really quite adaptable.

As for searching again... The weather has been fine, no massive storms, no heat waves (not generally a concern up there this time of year for sure), so that wouldn't be an issue, in fact typical PNW weather is an ideal trailing ground. The caveat to this is it really depend on the dogs training. The majority of SAR dogs are trained on fresh trails because the majority of work they do is looking for the lost who didn't come home for dinner or wandered off. What you need most of them time is a dog that can run a trail under 3 days old. A lot of certifications only require a successful run on a 24 hour trail. IMO this is too short, but that's a whole other conversation. As you get out past a week the amount of people that train regularly on older trails goes way down. It continues to go down the older you're talking. There are dogs that train regularly for older trails but they are few and far between. If they are LE K9's they are likely trained for young trails as they'll be using them for criminal work as well and this will be their focus. So... after all that, yes trying again is worth a shot provided you have dogs that have worked on older scent.

It is a very specific protocol that SHOULD be used, but it's not always realistic to think it's going to happen that way and again this depends on how the dog is trained. If you have always trained this way it can actually cause problems for the handler and the dog if their routine is thrown off. It's ideal, it doesn't have to be completely necessary for a successful search.

Not all dogs are created equal (just like everything in life). There are some incredible dogs, some fair dogs, and some that should never be in the field but are. To top it all off a handler makes a huge difference, so you're dealing with multiple factors.

If the dogs found no scent on the beach and providing these are well trained their handlers are good at reading their dogs then I would say that they never made it back onto the beach.

No, trailing dogs are scent specific and are only working that smell. This is why they are so great at working through crowds and busy trails. There would be no way to know if she was within someone or not. Now, if she stopped for a time to rest on a trail say the dog may very well indicate that something is up. Depends on the dog, they could circle, lift their head, slow down, work side to side. This is where the handler has to know their dog and through the hundreds of hours of training in controlled situations can have an idea as to what the dog is saying.
 
Oh, one more (I really appreciate your willingness to answer these questions).

Last night they brought blood hounds over, and took scent item.

That is what RS posted on his website. I took it to mean he brought the item to LE, because it wouldn't make sense for the handlers to bring the dogs up to Silverdale and return to Olympia. Do you try to keep the dogs away from areas that might confuse them (such as his house)? I know nothing about this, but common sense tells me you'd want to only bring the dogs to the spot you want to search.

If the shoe would have worked (after being in the water), what about items that were found in the van (like her wallet)? Why would the shoe have been ok as a scent item after being in the water, yet the van after being flooded would not be a good place to collect scent?

I would guess that what he meant was that they came over with dogs in truck and got the Scent article. I doubt seriously the dogs would have come in, no reason for them to in this situation where you know the house was not the place last seen. As for them being confused, they would not be given the scent article to smell at the time, it would have been done at the car by the water, so as far as they were concerned they were just going for a ride at that point.

Oh, didn't realize the shoe was in the water. No, neither are ideal.

I'm here to try and help, don't worry about it, ask away! Glad I can shed some light on the subject.
 
I agree. And her life was not horrible enough to cause a double-suicide, unless she had some inner demon we don't know of. But it seems unlikely.

For there to be a "double suicide" both people would have been of the mind to kill themselves. It's unlikely Az and his mom had an agreement to drown together. 'Hey son, you wanna go drown in the sound with me tonight?" "Sure mom, sounds like fun." Yeah, no, I don't think that's what happened. moo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
109
Guests online
337
Total visitors
446

Forum statistics

Threads
609,594
Messages
18,255,951
Members
234,698
Latest member
Digger1
Back
Top