Themis
Registered User
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 2,284
- Reaction score
- 0
IIRC the prosecution lost.
I did say "if the prosecution wins." That was not a very good way for me to express that. So, you are correct.
IIRC the prosecution lost.
Oh you pill! If LE wasn't looking at the car as evidence why would Cindy think the pants were of consequence? Remember Suzi she cleaned them prior to knowing anything .
That the officer that found the note didn't smell what would have been a noticable odor and subsequently note it seems odd. that's all I was getting at. I'm dazed and confused like the rest of us.
I get amazed because I've seen those kinds of dogs work in terrible disasters and they're wonderful.
What you're trying to explain is that in these types of instances as far as the law is concerned, there has to be other evidence to corroborate. That's true, but the definition of what that evidence may be is very loosely defined, and the dogs hitting can be used as a basis for a case as it was in the bond hearing for Casey.
Also, I am suspect of the story that the family has told about the day the dogs came and the inconsistencies they profess to have noted. It's procedural in many juristictions that they called the 2nd handler and dog in to verify for the 1st, and this is a common practice in law enforcement and the execution of each dog is performed sequentually. I don't know if you folks know or not, but the way that the handlers and dogs are notified of their participation is very selective as well, so as not to influence the handler or the dog prior to the search.
No it is not one of those cases as there were no bones found.
I just get tired of the dogs are always right when they are not proof if other evidence is not found. Just because they hit on an area it does not prove that a body has been there. We keep seeing but how do you explain the dogs hitting? Well I am trying to explain that the dogs are not proof alone but there must be other evidence also. I a, amazed so many people think that just because a dog hits it is absolute proof but it is not.
McSev: Are you saying that the dog and handler don't even know each other prior to the search? (Please remember that I'm a newbie...go easy....
Actually Casey said it was where ZG lived in years past. And LE knew that was a lie because a 26year old woman could not have lived there if it was Senior housing.
I think the smell didn't mean anything to her UNTIL she coupled it with the information that the baby was gone. You can almost hear her putting 2 and 2 together during the phone call.Because she smelled the car and the pants before she called 911. I would assume that the smell she smelled when she retreived the pants was the reason for the dead body comment to 911. :blowkiss:
I have to agree with this.As much as they spin and talk, Cindy, George and Lee may be the only 3 people on the planet that loved Caylee before July 15th, 2008. The lack by effort on anyone who knows this child in the Orlando area is pathetic. Perfect strangers who met on a message board have now searched, a psychic from Ohio has searched, a bail bondsman and his bounty hunter uncle from California are flying in just to see if a change in tactics can break the BS, and still the people who would have known Casey's routine day in and day out, outside of Cindy's house remain quiet. I don't mean a press tour, I mean being the voice of Caylee. Even Clint while great for feeding the media machine isn't looking for Caylee. NO ONE IS OUTRAGED.
That the officer that found the note didn't smell what would have been a noticable odor and subsequently note it seems odd. that's all I was getting at. I'm dazed and confused like the rest of us.
Hey, Rose I think had it been one dog and nothing else pointing to a dead body having been in those spots, people wouldn't feel as strongly about it. Of course, there's still a chance the testing will come back negative, but I think the stain, smell of decomp, lies by Casey and TWO dogs having hit in the same spots makes it more likely than not that they are probably accurate in this particular case.
At any rate, I'd put my faith in those dogs' noses way before I would put faith in any story from Casey. I would love for the testing to be negative and for the dogs to have been wrong -- that might mean Caylee is still alive. But, given everything else, they probably aren't wrong.
I do understand, though, that it takes a lot more than a couple of dogs smelling decomp to successfully prosecute a case. If Caylee is gone and it's because of Casey, let's just hope there's enough evidence (whatever the type) that justice can be served.
About the car and the "stink". Didn't George admit that he knew what it was and that it was so bad he had to drive home with the windows down and his head out the window?
Yes. We were just debating on when the car became important to the case vs. how long it took LE to take it as evidence. In the process we noticed there was no mention of the smell in the affidavit, even though the first responding officer found a note in the car. When and what date the officer found the note is not stated. Grrrrrrr. Doesn't LE know we need these details?
Most definitely they'd need DNA evidence to support the dog hits. If they don't have the DNA, the jury would naturally question what it was the dogs hit on.As far as I'm concerned if there is no body the hit was an error unless there is DNA evidence and I would never convict anyone only on the dogs hit.
What is an IDI?! Hey...I respect you, JBean. I just don't agree with you is all. LOL However, I will give you the pants.I think the smell didn't mean anything to her UNTIL she coupled it with the information that the baby was gone. You can almost hear her putting 2 and 2 together during the phone call.
I think she is innocent in washing those pants.
But then again I am an IDI so I dont get any respect.