Dogs

Yea, that's what has me wondering too. 3 1/2 miles isn't close (IMO), BUT the fact that they were reported to have trailed all the way down the I15 makes me wonder what they were following.
 
Yea, that's what has me wondering too. 3 1/2 miles isn't close (IMO), BUT the fact that they were reported to have trailed all the way down the I15 makes me wonder what they were following.

Yeah, I'm completely perplexed. I'm going to take a look at the mapping on this and see.... be back in a bit. 3.5 miles is certainly not close, but its close enough for an HRD dog IMO, but not for a handler to react in time, unless there are other (arial) methods employed. Hmm.
ETA- excuse my spelling. I dumped a glass of OJ on the keyboard and now it is sticking on certain keys.
 
I'm thinking that would explain a lot of things. But there are a huge # of variables here. Family being one of them. I would really like to know the scent article used.

ETA: or perhaps the person who had her, did.

But, if we're talking the person who took her, then we would be talking his/her scent article that they were following. Being that they didn't know who took her back when they did the search (and as far as we know they still don't), that seems like an unlikely scenario.
 
But, if we're talking the person who took her, then we would be talking his/her scent article that they were following. Being that they didn't know who took her back when they did the search (and as far as we know they still don't), that seems like an unlikely scenario.

Unless it was a family member or a transfer of some other sort.
 
Shoes? We need to know what the scent item was for that particular search.
 
Here's a map from the PLS to Pala. Roughly 21 miles from the HS to Library and then from the library to Arouba Rd is 3.5 miles roughly.
 

Attachments

  • detailed map from pls.jpg
    detailed map from pls.jpg
    137.5 KB · Views: 3
The PI for the case said that they were also using the dogs to confirm leads. They may have had information on Pala. We don't know as they won't talk about it and probably never will hear about it.

Socal, can you point me to the FBI articles for me, I would like to read them. It's also interesting that they talked about it on the news last year. I could find nothing in print from the media or anywhere from last August talking about it. Quite the opposite in fact, they said they had found nothing significant but were asked by LE to keep what they did find quiet. If it was on the news last year it should also have been in print, let me know if you can track down something from August.

Recuemedic, can you point me to a map that shows the library only being .5 miles from the body site? I thought that the library was in town and not on that road.

1) I don't know about any FBI articles, it's news to me! 2) I could not find any articles from August or otherwise about their then findings, however, I was surprised by how few articles about the disappearance in general appeared in my google search, when this was in the news quite alot, especially right after her disappearance, and then with every sighting, etc. I don't think it's disputed that the dogs tracked her scent to Pala and informed LE of the same--LE has not denied this--in fact LE has claimed they exercised due diligence and went up to Pala to see if anyone had seen her and they also brought in FBI dogs last November to see if they could duplicate the August findings. 3) They were not following leads that she could be in Pala. Here is an article on how they did it: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_7a7449b1-6a3d-5930-a68b-c0373e775ad1.html; Here's another: www.10news/22780380/detail.html Thanks for all of your help!
4)Per the dogs' handler, they tracked her scent approximately 3 miles up Pala-Temecula Road. That road starts at Pala Mission and there is only one way to go on it starting from Pala--so they were approximatley .5 miles from the location of her remains. 5) The Pala library is more than .5 miles from the location of the remains--more like 3 miles.
 
Hey, I can't seem to get either of those links to work. I'm still trying to find where it says they tracked scent up Pala-Temecula Rd as the last hour I've spent searching only yields info about the library, when anything is mentioned specifically at all.
 
And I would have to disagree about disputing tracking her scent. They tracked something to Pala, what we have no idea, and there are a whole lot of variables that could make sense.
 
Hey, I can't seem to get either of those links to work. I'm still trying to find where it says they tracked scent up Pala-Temecula Rd as the last hour I've spent searching only yields info about the library, when anything is mentioned specifically at all.

Here it is again: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_7a7449b1-6a3d-5930-a68b-c0373e775ad1.html

It's an article from the North County Times dated March 8, 2010; author is Sarah Gordon. They said the dogs hit on numerous places approx 3 miles traveling north on PT Road
 
And I would have to disagree about disputing tracking her scent. They tracked something to Pala, what we have no idea, and there are a whole lot of variables that could make sense.

Per this article they picked up her scent at her house. A few days ago on this thread, I believe, I posted a link to a SDUT article which identified how they got the scent at her house.
 
Here it is again: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_7a7449b1-6a3d-5930-a68b-c0373e775ad1.html

It's an article from the North County Times dated March 8, 2010; author is Sarah Gordon. They said the dogs hit on numerous places approx 3 miles traveling north on PT Road

Interesting, that is the only article I've seen reporting this (of course, they got the breed of dog wrong in part). It's also the first I've heard of them going nuts in a residential area by the casino.

I am leery to put too much weight on a lone article, especially with so much different information than all the rest.
 
Interesting, that is the only article I've seen reporting this (of course, they got the breed of dog wrong in part). It's also the first I've heard of them going nuts in a residential area by the casino.

I am leery to put too much weight on a lone article, especially with so much different information than all the rest.

Then you can't explain it if it's true?? This isn't the lone article--there's the Channel 10 news article wherein they interviewed the handler and the grandmother -link posted, and the SDUT article I posted the other day. Further, LE isn't exactly disclaiming it--on the contrary, they are claiming they followed up on it.
 
True, they did follow up, and they were not able to match any of the results.

There are lots of ways to explain it that don't actually involve them being on Amber's scent.
 
True, they did follow up, and they were not able to match any of the results.

There are lots of ways to explain it that don't actually involve them being on Amber's scent.

I guess that was my initial question way back when--lol! How can it be explained?
 
Here's another article:
http://www.examiner.com/x-18953-San...ily-lead-searchers-to-Pala-last-August-photos

Also, the media was following the dogs when the search was going on and they showed part of it on the news at the time. Maybe you could locate that??

Ok, so in this article the dog handler states
"According to Platts, Escondido police never talked to her about their findings."

If the police didn't talk to Platts (the dog handler), then how did they take FBI used dogs into the same area to try and confirm the findings?

I don't know at this point who is telling the truth.
 
Ok, so in this article the dog handler states
"According to Platts, Escondido police never talked to her about their findings."

If the police didn't talk to Platts (the dog handler), then how did they take FBI used dogs into the same area to try and confirm the findings?

I don't know at this point who is telling the truth.

They could have read the report the private investigator prepared without talking to the dog's trainer. I think police were skeptical about these results. I think these results are pretty "out there," considering the dogs supposedly followed the trail six month after the fact. If police consulted any dog handlers then they probably were informed that it's a very long time after the fact.

"Michael Boyle, an Orange County Fire Authority battalion chief who worked with search dogs as part of a multi-agency search and rescue task force for almost 20 years, called it a "pretty brazen claim" that dogs could follow a 6-month-old outdoor trail."

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/escondido/article_7a7449b1-6a3d-5930-a68b-c0373e775ad1.html
I would guess this is a common opinion among dog handlers, unless these dogs are some "super-dogs."
 
my statistical inference is to state a scientific opinion about the probability of this being a false trail -its statisticallly impossible for it not to be on scent of some kind -not sparring just realize if we look at this like we do in medicine the outcome based information is what we look at _they were very close in thousnds of square miles _hitting the right haystack among thousands is a good job> yes imagery would have been the next step _with dog teams on cadaver mode>
 
my statistical inference is to state a scientific opinion about the probability of this being a false trail -its statisticallly impossible for it not to be on scent of some kind -not sparring just realize if we look at this like we do in medicine the outcome based information is what we look at _they were very close in thousnds of square miles _hitting the right haystack among thousands is a good job> yes imagery would have been the next step _with dog teams on cadaver mode>

Yea well if the private investigator believed the pala reservation was a good area to dump a body, your "statistical inference" goes right out the window. Statistics are going to tell us nada about how these dogs supposedly followed a trail six months later because we don't know what transpired.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
1,150
Total visitors
1,323

Forum statistics

Threads
589,160
Messages
17,914,964
Members
227,743
Latest member
McKeith
Back
Top