Police say parents are not answering vital questions #2

[Whisperer]

BBM

It is not a fact that someone died in the house. It's also not a fact that DB was the one involved, either directly or indirectly, with the result of that 'hit'.

...of course not..

...and to add to that, the dogs are no good and LE stinks.

 

[Whisperer]

I'd prefer to go with the person that actually lives in the neighborhood and remembers what the temp was that night vs what any book says, but that's just me.

I prefer to go with DeAnn's post # 1149 of this thread.

 

[In da Middle]

I prefer to go with DeAnn's post # 1149 of this thread.

And that low would be about 4am Tues morning not 11:30 pm Monday night.

 

[madge]

For me the crux of this is all the "coincidences" that had to happen this very night in order for the baby to be stolen. I totally suck at google stuff so I never did find a number on how many actual babies under 1 year old were kidnapped last year. It was like this very night was a perfect storm.

 

[Karmaa]

Respectfully snipped for space:

<I sure would understand why they might give a wink and a nudge to a handler to see if they could get a hit. It gets them in the house legally, and if no other dogs hit there, then it was obviously a "false alarm", no harm, no foul. Which would explain why the carpet, floor, wall, and everything else in the vicinity of the "hit" was not taken out as evidence.[/quote]>

Hmm.

As a handler, I find the 'wink and a nudge' somewhat offensive. And I think most other ethical K9 handlers would as well.
We don't 'set up' alerts, nor do we testify to an alert by our working K9, if it didn't occur in accordance with our proofed and trained alerts.
If there's no alert- you say so.
'No harm, no foul' is not, IMO, the code that ethical, responsible, and well seasoned dog handlers fly by.

Can you explain how you know that nothing in the vicinity of the "hit' was taken out as evidence?

Sorry you took offense, but you pretty much answered your own issue when you said "most other ethical K9 handlers" and "ethical, responsible, and well seasoned dog handlers". Most - that means not ALL, correct? What about non-ethical, non-responsible and non-well seasoned handlers?

Just like in any other walk of life, there are good, ethical people, and there are unethical people. That goes for LE, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and certainly for dog handlers too.

We also do not know officially who the dog is, who the handler is, what relationship they have with LE. So there is no way to judge how ethical, responsible or well-seasoned they are.

And, I hate to say it, but that is such an EASY way to get probable cause that LE does it. In fact, I know about it because I was told about it in one of my classes (they were NOT suggesting that people do this, but they said that it is done.) I guarantee you that there are professional, paid handlers who would do that to help LE out.

Again, sorry to offend you. I know that there is a close-knit community of SARs (my brother is a SAR volunteer - not with dogs but with alpine rescues), but there are some less than stellar people in every area. You would not do it, but I am sure someone would.

 

[Donjeta]

JMO but maybe we should wait until we have seen some evidence that the dog handlers who went in the house are non-ethical and non-responsible before we call them such. We don't even know their names.

 

[madge]

JMO but maybe we should wait until we have seen some evidence that the dog handlers who went in the house are non-ethical and non-responsible before we call them such. We don't even know their names.

Excellent idea

 

[sarx]

You are right Karmaa, there are unethical people in every profession and SAR is not exempt by any stretch, in fact you don't have to do too much research to find cases of this where it was in the media spotlight (pretty much like every profession). This is why it is soooo important that agencies know where they are getting their dogs from and who they are working with. The vast majority of us out there would never risk case integrity for anything, but there are a few and most of them are pretty easy to spot.
The public does not know who these dogs are associated with and therefore I don't think can make assumptions one way or another.

 

[Whisperer]

Thread has gone to the dogs...

 

[sarx]

[/B]

...and are you suggesting that the someone who is devious worked this case but you are giving Oriah a pass?

....looks like all the bad people and animals were assigned to the Lisa Irwin case..darn shame1

I'm a little confused by this post. Are you saying Oriah is devious?

 

[Karmaa]

JMO but maybe we should wait until we have seen some evidence that the dog handlers who went in the house are non-ethical and non-responsible before we call them such. We don't even know their names.

My post was clearly my THEORY. I said "I think" which means exactly that. At no time did I ever accuse the HRD dog handler that allegedly "hit" on the scent of being non-ethical or non-responsible.

As you indicated, we don't know who they are, and I would never accuse an individual of bad behavior without knowing the facts. Not even the parent of a possible kidnap victim.

 

[highflyer]

I'm just curious where the information about the dog (or any of the dogs) came from? I honestly don't recall reading or watching anything that discussed the dog, the handler, it's statistics or it's reputation. I would really like to know that. If we know for a FACT about the dog, it may add more weight to the "hit".

As it stands now, I think the "hit" was very possibly just a convenient way to get probable cause for a search warrant. What ELSE did LE have to use for PC? Nothing. And they clearly wanted to do some deep searching. AND they tried to keep the search warrant sealed when they really didn't bring anything all that exciting out of the house.

I sure would understand why they might give a wink and a nudge to a handler to see if they could get a hit. It gets them in the house legally, and if no other dogs hit there, then it was obviously a "false alarm", no harm, no foul. Which would explain why the carpet, floor, wall, and everything else in the vicinity of the "hit" was not taken out as evidence.

You really think LE would risk ruining a case by making up a false positive?

 

[Donjeta]

Wouldn't falsifying hits look a bit bad in the dog's training diary? I watched some of the Casey Anthony trial and the dog handlers who testified were very particular about the notes they had made about their dogs' accuracy with the hits and misses, false positives and false negatives. If they recorded this as a hit and it turns out there was nothing there it would be a false positive and the accuracy of the dog would go down.

Oh but if it's an unethical handler he no doubt forges the accuracy reports as well.

There are bad people in every walk of life and there are people who don't know what they're doing even if their intentions are good. I just find it a bit problematic if I have to assume that all the evidence that points to the home has been made up by bad people.

 

[Whisperer]

I'm a little confused by this post. Are you saying Oriah is devious?

..Of course not. It was sarcasm. The poster assumed Oriah is good and ethical but the one/s at the Irwin house were bad and devious.

 

[Donjeta]

My post was clearly my THEORY. I said "I think" which means exactly that. At no time did I ever accuse the HRD dog handler that allegedly "hit" on the scent of being non-ethical or non-responsible.

As you indicated, we don't know who they are, and I would never accuse an individual of bad behavior without knowing the facts. Not even the parent of a possible kidnap victim.

Sorry, I thought your theory accused LE of bad behavior, my mistake.

I would like to be able to give the kidnap victim's parents a pass without assuming that the investigators assigned to the case are investigating unethically. I know there are bad cops but I just would feel more confident if it wasn't a necessary assumption.

 

[sarx]

Ahh, gotchya, sorry, tis the season for my brain to be fried. Trying again though to figure out why so much focus is being put on this single dog hit.... If this is all they have, then well, it doesn't really matter if it was good, bad, honest or fraudulent, cuz regardless it's not enough.

 

[Donjeta]

Why did they need a dog hit for the warrant anyway?
I don't understand.

I thought a warrant would be a matter of asking if you have an infant missing from a home. It's clearly going to be foul play if the child is too small to run away or get lost on her own.

 

[Whisperer]

Sorry you took offense, but you pretty much answered your own issue when you said "most other ethical K9 handlers" and "ethical, responsible, and well seasoned dog handlers". Most - that means not ALL, correct? What about non-ethical, non-responsible and non-well seasoned handlers?

Just like in any other walk of life, there are good, ethical people, and there are unethical people. That goes for LE, lawyers, doctors, politicians, and certainly for dog handlers too.

We also do not know officially who the dog is, who the handler is, what relationship they have with LE. So there is no way to judge how ethical, responsible or well-seasoned they are.

And, I hate to say it, but that is such an EASY way to get probable cause that LE does it. In fact, I know about it because I was told about it in one of my classes (they were NOT suggesting that people do this, but they said that it is done.) I guarantee you that there are professional, paid handlers who would do that to help LE out.

Again, sorry to offend you. I know that there is a close-knit community of SARs (my brother is a SAR volunteer - not with dogs but with alpine rescues), but there are some less than stellar people in every area. You would not do it, but I am sure someone would.

...and that someone is working the Irwin case...according to the post

 

[In da Middle]

Ahh, gotchya, sorry, tis the season for my brain to be fried. Trying again though to figure out why so much focus is being put on this single dog hit.... If this is all they have, then well, it doesn't really matter if it was good, bad, honest or fraudulent, cuz regardless it's not enough.

Thank you! This is what I have been saying all along. It's nice to have validation. Which is exactly what we DONT have on the dog hit.

 

[Whisperer]

Ahh, gotchya, sorry, tis the season for my brain to be fried. Trying again though to figure out why so much focus is being put on this single dog hit.... If this is all they have, then well, it doesn't really matter if it was good, bad, honest or fraudulent, cuz regardless it's not enough.

..it's enough for probable cause and it's enough for most to believe there was a cadaver in the home. They need more because people want to see more evidence and there are too many skeptics when it comes to dogs.

This doesn't meant the dog was wrong...it just means people are not open to dogs' abilities in a court of law as we just witnessed in the Anthony Case. It appears we have similar types right here.

I stand by the FBI well-trained dog.