OK OK - Jamison Family: Truck, IDs and Dog Found Abandoned 08 Oct 2009 - #12

[TooCurious]

Is there something other than the clue logs which indicate that the HRD clues were actually on human remains? I was under the impression that an alert was something that smelled like decomposing human remains to a trained dog. I'm not convinced that a HRD indication is infallible, and it seems like their alert would have to be verified to be certain.

An unverifiable alert in a bedroom would probably be human because it is unlikely that there have been dead pigs in a typical bedroom, but it seems like it would be a stretch to presume that an alert in the woods where lots of pigs live cannot be the remains of a pig. It might be helpful if we knew what LE determined regarding the alerts.

Articles that mention the pig caveat:

http://missingmadeleine.forumotion....dogs-saying-you-re-lying-pat-brown-13-12-2011

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._cadaver_dogs_smell_30_year_old_corpses_.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...uth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

Dogs can tell the difference between pigs and human. The problem a rises when dogs are trained with decaying pig vs decaying human. I found it interesting that chicken was actually close to human than pig. So maybe the answer to your question can be found in how they were trained but the following link should answer your question about ability to differentiate between between the two.


http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/04/training-cadaver-dogs-on-pig-remains.html?m=1

 

[TooCurious]

With that I mean there is a significant difference between hog and human and a canine can distinguish between the two if they have been trained properly. The conclusion is so relevant to this case because ultimately LE may use the hrd to prove death elsewhere.

 

[poppygirl]

I just don't see how this could be murder/suicide. In that type of terrain it would take at least couple of hours to reach where they were found. It would be slow going and they would be getting hot and sweaty. So, are the murder/suicide supporters think she held a gun on them the whole way? From the time she made them get out of the truck until they got to the area? LE takes scenarios and by way of eliminating they state why it isn't this or that scenario. Anyone care to try this here?
Why ISN'T it
A) murder/suicide
B) exposure
C) murder (by as of yet unknown assailant(s))
D) WPP (for u Mitch)
E) drug OD

Here is mine
A) As stated above
B) I can't rule this out yet
C) I can't rule this out yet
D) 3 bodies, 1 pink shoe
E) No evidence they were using drugs, except prescription.

Anyone care to do this and see what logical scenarios we can come up with?

Long time lurker here...I just felt compelled to comment on why I think murder/suicide can't be ruled out...

If you believe they could have wandered off & died of exposure, then I think you can also consider that they wandered off & ended in murder/suicide. They could have decided to go for a hike/walk and gotten lost. In that case, they would've probably taken the gun with them if they had it (if I had a gun & was in a strange, isolated place - I'd take it with me). They may not have reached the destination where the remains were found within a few hours or even a few days...if they were wandering around lost, maybe going in circles, they might have even still been out there while rescuers were searching. Sherilyn, who may have been a little unstable to begin with, could have felt a sense of complete hopelessness & killed herself/family rather than dying from exposure. Or maybe something happened to Madyson - she fell, hit her head & died...& they decided to end it.

It is also possible that they had been arguing already & things were tense...perhaps Sherilyn wasn't keen on moving to the mountain (the letter found in the truck). It may be why Madyson looked a little stressed in that last picture -if Mom & Dad had been arguing.

The one other thing that always bothered me in a murder/suicide scenario is the dog - why leave the family dog behind? But if they left that truck with the intention of going back & something happened on the way (a huge argument, getting lost, an accident etc) that led to murder/suicide, then it would explain why the dog was left to die on it's own.

The other thing that really creeps me out is the other abandoned truck on the property with the graffitti on it - if Sherilyn did that, I think it speaks volumes to the state of mind she may have been in. Why spray paint that truck? Did she feel she needed to ward off spirits? someone else? was she having an episode? I just don't think sane people do things like that...while looking at potential property to purchase. Then the letter she wrote, the missing gun, that last picture of Madyson (where she does look upset but not terrified).

Anyway, that's not to say I think it was murder/suicide - I honestly don't know what happened to them & find most of the theories posted here to be just as likely as any other...I just don't think we can rule it out either.

Also - have to say how impressed I am by the level of sleuthing done on this thread...I'm in awe of all of you!!!

 

[TooCurious]

Back to the original question that started the inquiry of the report. Would any of you sleuthers care to post historical photos 2008,2009, and 2010 of the area Iin question so we all can see? Pretty please?

 

[wfgodot]

Long time lurker here...I just felt compelled to comment on why I think murder/suicide can't be ruled out...

Hi poppygirl and welcome to posting at WS.

 

[TooCurious]

Long time lurker here...I just felt compelled to comment on why I think murder/suicide can't be ruled out...

If you believe they could have wandered off & died of exposure, then I think you can also consider that they wandered off & ended in murder/suicide. They could have decided to go for a hike/walk and gotten lost. In that case, they would've probably taken the gun with them if they had it (if I had a gun & was in a strange, isolated place - I'd take it with me). They may not have reached the destination where the remains were found within a few hours or even a few days...if they were wandering around lost, maybe going in circles, they might have even still been out there while rescuers were searching. Sherilyn, who may have been a little unstable to begin with, could have felt a sense of complete hopelessness & killed herself/family rather than dying from exposure. Or maybe something happened to Madyson - she fell, hit her head & died...& they decided to end it.

It is also possible that they had been arguing already & things were tense...perhaps Sherilyn wasn't keen on moving to the mountain (the letter found in the truck). It may be why Madyson looked a little stressed in that last picture -if Mom & Dad had been arguing.

The one other thing that always bothered me in a murder/suicide scenario is the dog - why leave the family dog behind? But if they left that truck with the intention of going back & something happened on the way (a huge argument, getting lost, an accident etc) that led to murder/suicide, then it would explain why the dog was left to die on it's own.

The other thing that really creeps me out is the other abandoned truck on the property with the graffitti on it - if Sherilyn did that, I think it speaks volumes to the state of mind she may have been in. Why spray paint that truck? Did she feel she needed to ward off spirits? someone else? was she having an episode? I just don't think sane people do things like that...while looking at potential property to purchase. Then the letter she wrote, the missing gun, that last picture of Madyson (where she does look upset but not terrified).

Anyway, that's not to say I think it was murder/suicide - I honestly don't know what happened to them & find most of the theories posted here to be just as likely as any other...I just don't think we can rule it out either.

Also - have to say how impressed I am by the level of sleuthing done on this thread...I'm in awe of all of you!!!

My answer to that is why not follow the first road they crossed? If they were lost and she wasn't homicidal/suicidal by the time they crossed the first road they would have followed it out. If she was, I don't believe she would have marched them another mile or so at gunpoint through that terrain. Why bother if all will be dead soon? Also, location/position of truck doesn't indicate a planned exit from vehicle IMO.

 

[TooCurious]

Also, murder/suicide means the gun would have been in close proximity to the body. Where is the gun? Regardless, this question needs to be answered.

 

[poppygirl]

I don't believe Sherilyn marched them anywhere at gunpoint (if indeed it was murder/suicide). I also don't think she set out with the intent of killing her family, if that's what happened. I think, if she was already unstable, that something on the 'hike' could've triggered it.

Why didn't they take a specific road etc? Who's to say they didn't? They may have taken any number of paths/roads & still gotten lost, especially if they got lost in the rain, or if it got dark...or maybe they had a big argument, and Bobby or Sherilyn stormed off in a particular, non-sensical direction & the other followed after. I think there's a lot of different things that *could've* happened.

Why didn't they find the gun with the bodies? They may have...and just not have told us. Who knows.

Anyway, just some thoughts...I think the only thing we can rule out for sure is that they intended to disappear & start fresh somewhere else (assuming of course that those remains are of the Jamisons).

 

[Mapman]

Dogs can tell the difference between pigs and human. The problem a rises when dogs are trained with decaying pig vs decaying human. I found it interesting that chicken was actually close to human than pig. So maybe the answer to your question can be found in how they were trained but the following link should answer your question about ability to differentiate between between the two.


http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2012/04/training-cadaver-dogs-on-pig-remains.html?m=1

Thanks for the link to the interesting article. I might have overlooked something, but I couldn't find anything in it that concluded that an HR dog will not alert on animal remains. The article seemed to be written to explain the research that needs to be done before the reliability of trained dogs can be established. It looks to me like the highest probably of training a perfect dog would be to train it with human remains and then subsequently train it to ignore animals with similar odors of decomposition. If the odors specific to human decomposition could be produced without a cadaver the dog could possibly be trained to alert on those odors without being trained to ignore the odors from other decomposing animals. It appears to me that a dog trained on dead pigs might alert on pigs, chickens, humans or other animals unless the dog had subsequent training to ignore those animals.

Based solely on the clue log, I don't see how we can conclude that the dogs alerted on human remains. We would have to know exactly what the certification/training process was for the dog providing the alert. Perhaps this is why the log refers to “clue” rather than proof or evidence. We need to know how LE handled these clues. If LE located a pig skull or chicken carcass near the clues they might have ruled the clues non-human. If no physical remains of any kind were found near the clues, LE might have ruled the clues inconclusive. And probably if LE had found physical human remains near the clues, they would rule the clues as conclusive although it wouldn't matter at that point because the remains alone would be the proof or evidence.

This is just my opinion at this point in time, and I am certainly no expert in this area.

 

[TheCrankyChef]

One of my (many) questions is that they went back to the property the next day. With money. I'm not clear if there was money in the brown satchel or not. If they were going to make a deal (didn't they look at 2 parcels?) it would make since they didn't have the total amount of money in one place.

Also, is there a grid that was searched and documented in the area where the remains were found? And who searched that grid at that time?

There is a lot of nasty that happened in my state (Melissa Jenkins, The Curriers, Pat O'Hagan, Brianna Matlaind) some with personal connections.

Nope. Not a M/S or wandered off to die in the woods.

 

[Mapman]

With that I mean there is a significant difference between hog and human and a canine can distinguish between the two if they have been trained properly. The conclusion is so relevant to this case because ultimately LE may use the hrd to prove death elsewhere.

I agree 100% that the reliability of the clues is very relevant. If it can be stated with reasonable certainty that the clues are human it would strongly suggest that more was involved in the Jamisons' deaths than mere exposure. And the leap from clues being human remains in general to being the Jamisons' remains would seem reasonable to me. At the very least we could conclude that someone moved them.

 

[TooCurious]

Thanks for the link to the interesting article. I might have overlooked something, but I couldn't find anything in it that concluded that an HR dog will not alert on animal remains. The article seemed to be written to explain the research that needs to be done before the reliability of trained dogs can be established. It looks to me like the highest probably of training a perfect dog would be to train it with human remains and then subsequently train it to ignore animals with similar odors of decomposition. If the odors specific to human decomposition could be produced without a cadaver the dog could possibly be trained to alert on those odors without being trained to ignore the odors from other decomposing animals. It appears to me that a dog trained on dead pigs might alert on pigs, chickens, humans or other animals unless the dog had subsequent training to ignore those animals.

Based solely on the clue log, I don't see how we can conclude that the dogs alerted on human remains. We would have to know exactly what the certification/training process was for the dog providing the alert. Perhaps this is why the log refers to “clue” rather than proof or evidence. We need to know how LE handled these clues. If LE located a pig skull or chicken carcass near the clues they might have ruled the clues non-human. If no physical remains of any kind were found near the clues, LE might have ruled the clues inconclusive. And probably if LE had found physical human remains near the clues, they would rule the clues as conclusive although it wouldn't matter at that point because the remains alone would be the proof or evidence.

This is just my opinion at this point in time, and I am certainly no expert in this area.

We are on the same page. The conclusion I got was they definitely can tell the difference if the exclusionary training is done or the use of decaying pigs is not used. It was a good article though. The one guy was using dirt that a decomposed body was on to train, resourceful tonsay the least! If in the future they plan on using hits as evidence they have to stop using pigs.

 

[TooCurious]

One of my (many) questions is that they went back to the property the next day. With money. I'm not clear if there was money in the brown satchel or not. If they were going to make a deal (didn't they look at 2 parcels?) it would make since they didn't have the total amount of money in one place.

Also, is there a grid that was searched and documented in the area where the remains were found? And who searched that grid at that time?

There is a lot of nasty that happened in my state (Melissa Jenkins, The Curriers, Pat O'Hagan, Brianna Matlaind) some with personal connections.

Nope. Not a M/S or wandered off to die in the woods.

Great idea. Has anyone referenced the search charts to see if the area was searched with HRD dogs or just people?

 

[Mapman]

The other thing that really creeps me out is the other abandoned truck on the property with the graffitti on it - if Sherilyn did that, I think it speaks volumes to the state of mind she may have been in. Why spray paint that truck? Did she feel she needed to ward off spirits? someone else? was she having an episode? I just don't think sane people do things like that...while looking at potential property to purchase. Then the letter she wrote, the missing gun, that last picture of Madyson (where she does look upset but not terrified).

Good point about the paint/graffitti. I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't carry around cans of spray paint, nor have I ever included spray paint in a preparation list for an afternoon outing. Do we know if the graffitti was placed there on the first or second trip. Maybe something on the first trip alarmed her so she returned with the paint the next time to address the problem. This doesn't suggest a healthy state of mind.

 

[Mapman]

Also, is there a grid that was searched and documented in the area where the remains were found? And who searched that grid at that time?

Are you referring to a search/grid conducted back in 2009 at the time of the original search or a search conducted after the discovery of the remains.

I don't know exactly what you mean by a grid, but I'm only familiar with two search maps that could be loosely described as grids which were associated with the original search, and both of these grids were in the area of the abandoned truck. One of the grids covered about 1100 acres and it included the area of the other grid. Unless there was some reason for the searchers to suspect that bodies were in the area where they were finally located we would probably have to assume that the searchers would work their way out from the truck to the 2.7 mile distance where the remains were located. The area encompassed by a ring with a 2.7 mile radius is almost 15,000 acres. Based on the distance the remains were located from the truck my guess is that there was no grid where searchers went over the ground with a fine tooth comb in the area where the remains were discovered, but I don't know this to be a fact.

I have no knowledge of the intensity of the search conducted after the discovery of the remains.

 

[TheCrankyChef]

Are you referring to a search/grid conducted back in 2009 at the time of the original search or a search conducted after the discovery of the remain

Snipped by me - yes, the original search.

http://superstition-sar.org/articles.php?id=20130503

 

[kytty]

If this was a cut and dry case of death by exposure wouldn't the Jamisons have been positively identified and the COD released by now? There must be something giving LE pause.

 

[Soulmagent]

Thanks for the link to the interesting article. I might have overlooked something, but I couldn't find anything in it that concluded that an HR dog will not alert on animal remains. The article seemed to be written to explain the research that needs to be done before the reliability of trained dogs can be established. It looks to me like the highest probably of training a perfect dog would be to train it with human remains and then subsequently train it to ignore animals with similar odors of decomposition. If the odors specific to human decomposition could be produced without a cadaver the dog could possibly be trained to alert on those odors without being trained to ignore the odors from other decomposing animals. It appears to me that a dog trained on dead pigs might alert on pigs, chickens, humans or other animals unless the dog had subsequent training to ignore those animals.

Based solely on the clue log, I don't see how we can conclude that the dogs alerted on human remains. We would have to know exactly what the certification/training process was for the dog providing the alert. Perhaps this is why the log refers to “clue” rather than proof or evidence. We need to know how LE handled these clues. If LE located a pig skull or chicken carcass near the clues they might have ruled the clues non-human. If no physical remains of any kind were found near the clues, LE might have ruled the clues inconclusive. And probably if LE had found physical human remains near the clues, they would rule the clues as conclusive although it wouldn't matter at that point because the remains alone would be the proof or evidence.

This is just my opinion at this point in time, and I am certainly no expert in this area.

I am actually stunned over the pig being used in the HRD training as I never knew it happened and I research human decomposition often. It is kinda my thing. I know they use pigs for study on decomp for enviromental purposes but I was always thought that if a dog was a certified it would be trained with human decomp only
I have always read the dogs are trained on a scent specific to human decomposition and would not hit on a anything except the chemical released about 2 hours after death I have read over and over that even used tampons do not have this scent . So while I will consider this in future cases relating to dog hits and I will probally do more research on false alerts It doesnt change my opinion of the importance on the hits in this case.

I know there were more than one SAR groups there with dogs and there are different ones listed on the clue log (blacked out but you can tell from the x's that there are more than one ) One of those was Pathfinders which was also mentioned in the media around the time . They have since" retired" . Also TES was out there maybe someone could ask there about search areeas and the dogs they had. I



I dont not believe the hits the dogs alerted on were from pigs giving that there were 3 bodies found in the area and there were more then one SAR teams .

 

[J. J. in Phila]

If this was a cut and dry case of death by exposure wouldn't the Jamisons have been positively identified and the COD released by now? There must be something giving LE pause.

There is reportedly a huge backlog at the ME's Office. COD may be hard to determine, thought some obvious signs of violence, e.g. a bullet hole in the skull, should be easy.

 

[Mapman]

Snipped by me - yes, the original search.

http://superstition-sar.org/articles.php?id=20130503

Okay, then I answered your question regarding grid searches that were conducted as best that I can.

After reading the article at your link I presume that you feel that there is a possibility that LE did something wrong related to the search. It doesn't seem to me that there is much similarity between the Jamison case and the one in the article. The widow in the article told LE where her husband was probably located, and they didn't bother to search that area.

In the Jamison case there was no information as to the location of the Jamisons. No one could even conclude that the Jamisons were still in the area. Even today after the discovery of three skeletons some people believe that the Jamisons are elsewhere. In 2009 there was no more reason to believe that the Jamisons were in the area where they were eventually discovered than any other spot. Apparently the searchers did the logical thing and concentrated their main search in areas close to the last place where the Jamisons had probably been which was their truck.

I have read that it takes about 924 man hours to do a “grid” search of a square mile of land when searching for missing persons. It would probably be more than that in the area where the Jamisons disappeared because of the difficulty of the terrain. To start a grid search at the truck and work their way out to a 2.7 mile radius the searchers would have had to search 22.9 square miles. At 924 man hours / square mile such a search would have consumed 21,160 man hours. A large well trained 100 person search team could have done this in 212 hours or in slightly less than 4 weeks if searching for 8 hours /day and 7 days/week. It doesn't make sense to me to commit this many resources and risk injury to so many searchers to grid search an area without being reasonably sure that the lost persons are in that area. If a member of the Jamison family had received a cell phone call from the Jamisons explaining that they were lost somewhere in the general area of their truck, I am confident that the search would have continued until they were found.