Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[krimekat]

This is what I recall as well, In da Middle. Thanks for still being a local on the ground for WS.

Also, the only indication that cadaver dogs hit on "decomp" was the initial search (that JI consented to), right?
And, that's what prompted the more thorough search (as per the Search Warrant), right?
And, apparently there was only one hit, right?

Just trying to establish fact from fiction without re-reading through these posts. Thought it was clear to me last week but re-reading, I am not so sure :crazy:

Thanks!

bumping . . . can someone please answer about the ONE hit?

This thread is not for phone discussion - Great stuff in the phone thread: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155106"]Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Nixie]

bumping . . . can someone please answer about the ONE hit?

This thread is not for phone discussion - Great stuff in the phone thread: Cell Phone Activity Discussion Thread #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

There was one hit mentioned in the search warrant. Ron Rugan- a local PI- stated that his source close to LE said that the dogs hit on numerous items removed from the home. The only thing LE ever released was the info in the search warrant though so I guess Fact: one hit Rumor: numerous hits including Lisa's clothes, blanket and toy.

 

[matou]

I wonder if the statement "the dog hit on an area on the floor near the bed" can mean hit more than once in the same area?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I wonder if the statement "the dog hit on an area on the floor near the bed" can mean hit more than once in the same area?

If that is what they were trying to convey, wouldn't something like " there were hits by the dog on an area on the floor near the bed" be more appropriate?

 

[matou]

If that is what they were trying to convey, wouldn't something like " there were hits by the dog on an area on the floor near the bed" be more appropriate?

I think we all agreed that the search warrant was written in a vague manner in regards to this part. I'm suggesting that the dog hitting more than once could be a possibility even in the way it was described in the warrant.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think we all agreed that the search warrant was written in a vague manner in regards to this part. I'm suggesting that the dog hitting more than once could be a possibility even in the way it was described in the warrant.

Maybe. But I believe they would have used a plural term if there were multiple hits. IMO.

 

[Donjeta]

JMO and I'm no dog handler but I think if there were several items with the same smell in very close proximity on the floor the dog would probably hit once where the scent is the strongest. If the items are then taken away and presented to the dog one by one he could hit on all of them but it wouldn't be in an area of the floor any more.

I think the search warrant is intentionally vague because they don't want to give things away.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

JMO and I'm no dog handler but I think if there were several items with the same smell in very close proximity on the floor the dog would probably hit once where the scent is the strongest. If the items are then taken away and presented to the dog one by one he could hit on all of them but it wouldn't be in an area of the floor any more.

I think the search warrant is intentionally vague because they don't want to give things away.

BBM
What would LE gain by stating that there was only one hit by the dog vs multiple hits? That is if there were, in fact, multiple hits.

 

[matou]

I remember seeing a laundry basket on the floor. Maybe the soft items from the warrant were in the basket.

 

[matou]

BBM
What would LE gain by stating that there was only one hit by the dog vs multiple hits? That is if there were, in fact, multiple hits.

That's the thing. The warrant does not indicate the number of hits at all. It does not state that the dog hit once or hit more than once.

 

[Minette]

What I wonder about is whether the items were seen/photographed on the floor on the morning Lisa was reported missing or at least before the crime scene was initially released or whether they could have been moved there later from the crib.

 

[matou]

Can someone refresh me on the earliest home searches by LE? Weren't the investigators only allowed to search in certain rooms of the house or am I totally off on this? I know dogs were in the house on Oct 6th. (will find link later)

 

[3doglady]

If he/she wasn't familiar with the phone, maybe not. I don't really know, I think the vm attempts are bizarre no matter who had the phone.

Some phones you can hold down the 1 key to access vm.

There was no reason for DB to try to access vm when she could easily see the no vm icon on her phone. There was a reason for a criminal to try and access her vm.
There have been several posts in the cell phone thread stating that criminals can access personal info by getting in someone's voice mail and commit fraud on that person's financial accounts. This link explains a little of that. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/20/y...ure-than-you-thought.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

 

[Deleted member 39678]

That's the thing. The warrant does not indicate the number of hits at all. It does not state that the dog hit once or hit more than once.

That's my question. Why state hit vs hits.

 

[matou]

Ranch: don't know why. People have been stating that the dog only hit once and I propose that maybe the dog hit more than once and that the warrant description is still correct and vague in the way it was written.

 

[Donjeta]

BBM
What would LE gain by stating that there was only one hit by the dog vs multiple hits? That is if there were, in fact, multiple hits.

Would it be considered multiple hits or just follow up validation of the original hit, *if* the dog hit on a pile of items they took after they were removed from the floor and presented individually. I don't think the dogs have the capacity to indicate that in this pile of items this stinks and this stinks but this doesn't, other than taking the items one by one. They would indicate that this pile stinks, which I guess would be one hit.

"On October 17, 2011, an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of (Jeremy) Irwin and Bradley. The cadaver dog indicated a positive 'hit' for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed."



Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/news/29552254/detail.html#ixzz1fnzztHgG

I just always felt that the wording "in an area of the floor" sounded like maybe there was some stuff in that area that the dog hit on and they didn't want it made public what item(s) it was. But I could be wrong.

 

[In da Middle]

Can someone refresh me on the earliest home searches by LE? Weren't the investigators only allowed to search in certain rooms of the house or am I totally off on this? I know dogs were in the house on Oct 6th. (will find link later)

They were not only allowed to search certain areas. I think where the confusion lies is the search warrant says only certain areas were extensively processed for DNA and such. That was a LE decision. There is no way a dog could have had the hit to get the search warrant if they were not allowed to be in that room.

 

[madge]

Area OF the floor not Area On the floor. I often felt it was a blanket and clothing.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Ranch: don't know why. People have been stating that the dog only hit once and I propose that maybe the dog hit more than once and that the warrant description is still correct and vague in the way it was written.

You have a point there. If I was LE and wanted to be vague, I would have said this. " The dog alerted in the bedroom to the scent of human remains". Your not saying how many hits or any particular item involved.

 

[Sparklin]

if you are making up a story, about a phone being stolen, it doesn't really make sense to say only one phone was stolen. If the "alleged" kidnapper wanted a phone, or wanted to put an obstacle in the way of the parents making a call, why wouldn't he take all three? According to DB's statements, they were all together on the counter. JMO

But since that particular phone (Deb's) was 'broken and cut out' ~ if she got rid of the one phone, if anyone ever did inquire, she could have said she trashed it for that reason. The other two still there and no one the wiser?