Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)

redheadedgal · Feb 9, 2012

Donjeta said:
It may or may not have any bearing to DB's guilt or innocence because if we assume that JT is right and the HRD dogs hit on old diaper smell then they may have hit in a hundred other places in the home where old diapers used to be handled and in fact it isn't very logical to assume that there is only one spot in the home where the smell may have transferred. What about garbage bins, places where you wash your hands after changing a diaper, etc.

it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...

In da Middle · Feb 9, 2012

redheadedgal said:
it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...

IMO believing the dogs would also mean that one would have to assume that the baby did not die in the crib or the bed because if they did, LE should have taken them for testing. The beds and crib are all still there. If the dogs did hit there and LE did not take them then we would have to assume bad investigation IMO.

cityslick · Feb 9, 2012

redheadedgal said:
it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...

This part also speaks volumes:

Oriah said:
There are many ways that human decomp can be present, and not involve a death. So an HRD alert does not necessarily rule in or out whether a death has occured. Hope this helps with some questions.

norest4thewicked · Feb 9, 2012

Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...
This part also speaks volumes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriah View Post
There are many ways that human decomp can be present, and not involve a death. So an HRD alert does not necessarily rule in or out whether a death has occured. Hope this helps with some questions

BBM

Hmmm...not trying to be snarky but, if that's the case, I wonder why they even use the dogs. It seems that if they can hit on so many things besides death, how would one know if they actually were hitting on death?

In da Middle · Feb 9, 2012

norest4thewicked said:
Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...
This part also speaks volumes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriah View Post
There are many ways that human decomp can be present, and not involve a death. So an HRD alert does not necessarily rule in or out whether a death has occured. Hope this helps with some questions

BBM

Hmmm...not trying to be snarky but, if that's the case, I wonder why they even use the dogs. It seems that if they can hit on so many things besides death, how would one know if they actually were hitting on death?

THIS is why they have to verify, either with another dog and/or further testing. The dogs are just a tool to help narrow down what they should send in for testing, otherwise they would have been taking far too many "possible" things and it would be very inefficient to do that. Let's say they thought she died in the bed. IF they bring in multiple dogs and NONE of them hit on the bed, then they should not need to waste resources in testing the bed. The dogs ARE a very good tool to be added, not the only tool.

RANCH · Feb 9, 2012

norest4thewicked said:
Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...
This part also speaks volumes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriah View Post
There are many ways that human decomp can be present, and not involve a death. So an HRD alert does not necessarily rule in or out whether a death has occured. Hope this helps with some questions

BBM

Hmmm...not trying to be snarky but, if that's the case, I wonder why they even use the dogs. It seems that if they can hit on so many things besides death, how would one know if they actually were hitting on death?

BBM
It's a tool that can help an investigation. Lets say a HRD dog hits on an item. You would then take that item and have testing done to gather evidence. Or if the HRD dog hit on a car you would impound the car and look for evidence of a dead body being in the car. JMO.

Donjeta · Feb 9, 2012

If one dog hits on a random drop of harmless human decomp other dogs could just as well. I don't see how multiple hits by multiple dogs would rule out a non-death source if none of them can tell the difference between a dead person and dead cells from other sources.

hambirg · Feb 9, 2012

cityslick said:
We can only go off what we know and speculate from there. It's very easy (if you think DB is guilty) to auto assume 'there must be more than one hit' or 'there must be more evidence' or 'LE must know more than us' but the fact of the matter is, to me, that's assuming and speculating on things that are not facts at this time.

The fact remains, as far as we know, there was only one hit. If it comes out there were more hits, then that will be added to the facts.

True, but I think the "there was only one dog hit" must be qualified with "as far as we know." And I do think it is safe to say that LE knows more than we do. They processed the house. They know if there was more than one hit, they know if the one hit that we know about was verified by another dog. They know the results of DB LDT. They know what was said in the initial interviews. They know what SB said to them. . . .and on and on.

MOO

RANCH · Feb 9, 2012

hambirg said:
True, but I think the "there was only one dog hit" must be qualified with "as far as we know." And I do think it is safe to say that LE knows more than we do. They processed the house. They know if there was more than one hit, they know if the one hit that we know about was verified by another dog. They know the results of DB LDT. They know what was said in the initial interviews. They know what SB said to them. . . .and on and on.

MOO

If there were additional dog hits would LE have taken those items for further testing?

If we limit are discussions to only the things verified to us by LE, we would have very little to talk about. JMO.

melissasmom · Feb 9, 2012

norest4thewicked said:
Originally Posted by redheadedgal View Post
it was very recently pointed out by an expert that an HRD dog WOULD NOT hit on either urine or feces*... see HRD dog question/answer thread (last page).

this to me, spoke volumes.

to quote another poster: "i believe the dog."

*i don't understand why so many people think otherwise... "human remains detection" and all...
This part also speaks volumes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oriah View Post
There are many ways that human decomp can be present, and not involve a death. So an HRD alert does not necessarily rule in or out whether a death has occured. Hope this helps with some questions

BBM

Hmmm...not trying to be snarky but, if that's the case, I wonder why they even use the dogs. It seems that if they can hit on so many things besides death, how would one know if they actually were hitting on death?

I am bringing a post over here from the HRD thread. It was very interesting. It seems that cadaver dogs will hit on blood (decomposing blood, I guess) This is actually a post from one person and then Oriah's response to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal
So they hit on decomposing humans AND blood that came from a living human being? In the two years we've lived here, we had a fall which resulted in stitches (head wound) as well as a bad bloody nose that occurred while I was in the shower (meaning I didn't get there quick enough). So at my house there are at least two spots on our floor that may get a "hit" by a cadaver dog even though everyone in our home is living?

Possibly. It would largely depend on what kind of surface the blood was deposited on.

For example, I too had an injury in the past year that produced a lot of blood inside a residence. Actually it was a trail from outside to inside, which may help explain even further.

In my situation; there was blood deposited on grass, then on dirt, then on cement, then on sealed hardwood floors, then on tile, then on a towel, then on stainless steel.

We cleaned everything up, of course- but certain surfaces retain HR scent particles (such as blood) much longer than others. The concrete, for example. Scrubbed it with bleach and can't see a thing. But one of our HRD dogs will still hit on it if we put him to work.
The tile? Scrubbed that too- but the grout retains the scent. He'll hit on that also. The sealed hardwood floors- no. The towel we threw away, so I've no idea, lol. If we hadn't thrown it away, I guarantee he'd be hitting on that. The stainless steel- no. But that's because it is a sink, and not a sealed stainless steel container.

Does that make any sense?

Sherbie · Feb 9, 2012

cityslick said:
We can only go off what we know and speculate from there. It's very easy (if you think DB is guilty) to auto assume 'there must be more than one hit' or 'there must be more evidence' or 'LE must know more than us' but the fact of the matter is, to me, that's assuming and speculating on things that are not facts at this time.

The fact remains, as far as we know, there was only one hit. If it comes out there were more hits, then that will be added to the facts.

As far as we know, one HRD hit was listed in the search warrant application. We don't know if that was the only one. It may well have been, and it would be speculation to assume there were more; however, it's not unreasonable to wonder if there might have been others, IMO. Wish we knew!

I disagree, though, that it's speculation or assumption to say that LE must have more evidence or that LE must know more than we do.

Evidence: So far as I know, everything collected by LE (physical items or information) is considered evidence, and we definitely don't know the entirety of what they've gathered. Whether it points to or away from anyone is another matter, but they surely have more evidence than we're aware of.

Knowledge: There's no doubt whatsoever that LE knows more than we do, simply because they are privy to the results of their investigation, whereas we are not. They know, for example, far more about the complete phone records, Jersey, financial matters, whether those sightings were credible or ruled out, info from neighbors/family, LDTs, forensic testing, etc.

In da Middle · Feb 9, 2012

Sherbie said:
As far as we know, one HRD hit was listed in the search warrant application. We don't know if that was the only one. It may well have been, and it would be speculation to assume there were more; however, it's not unreasonable to wonder if there might have been others, IMO. Wish we knew!

I disagree, though, that it's speculation or assumption to say that LE must have more evidence or that LE must know more than we do.

Evidence: So far as I know, everything collected by LE (physical items or information) is considered evidence, and we definitely don't know the entirety of what they've gathered. Whether it points to or away from anyone is another matter, but they surely have more evidence than we're aware of.

Knowledge: There's no doubt whatsoever that LE knows more than we do, simply because they are privy to the results of their investigation, whereas we are not. They know, for example, far more about the complete phone records, Jersey, financial matters, whether those sightings were credible or ruled out, info from neighbors/family, LDTs, forensic testing, etc.

To me though, what they DIDN'T take is very important if talking a dead baby. No beds, no crib, no furniture, no flooring, no vehicles.............

Sherbie · Feb 9, 2012

hambirg said:
True, but I think the "there was only one dog hit" must be qualified with "as far as we know." And I do think it is safe to say that LE knows more than we do. They processed the house. They know if there was more than one hit, they know if the one hit that we know about was verified by another dog. They know the results of DB LDT. They know what was said in the initial interviews. They know what SB said to them. . . .and on and on.

MOO

I should've refreshed the page before I posted - looks like I basically repeated your points.

Sherbie · Feb 9, 2012

In da Middle said:
To me though, what they DIDN'T take is very important if talking a dead baby. No beds, no crib, no furniture, no flooring, no vehicles.............

Of course that's important - I agree with that. They did take a blanket and a tape dispenser, though. I tend to think the hit was in one specific area that was not the bed itself or the crib (something perhaps that was in the floor, but not the floor itself). Do we know what was previously taken (and potentially tested) during the voluntary searches?

Sherbie · Feb 9, 2012

RANCH said:
If there were additional dog hits would LE have taken those items for further testing?

If we limit are discussions to only the things verified to us by LE, we would have very little to talk about. JMO.

For sure, they would've taken items HRD dogs hit on.

I think these guys are about as tight-lipped as I've ever seen LE in a missing child case. I wonder whether it's just strict policy or if there's some other reason and what that reason might be.

In da Middle · Feb 9, 2012

Sherbie said:
Of course that's important - I agree with that. They did take a blanket and a tape dispenser, though. I tend to think the hit was in one specific area that was not the bed itself or the crib (something perhaps that was in the floor, but not the floor itself). Do we know what was previously taken (and potentially tested) during the voluntary searches?

I, too, am wondering about the tape and dispenser the very most, but I also have a very, very hard time believing that if there was a dead baby there, it would be in just one spot. I don't think it is very likely that a body only stayed in one spot as in died in the spot and was never moved for any reason whatsoever like checking for signs of life or 'packaging' even. There should be more "spots" no matter what. I would think only unless the body was never moved at all and we know that is not the case because she is not there. I hope I explained that right.

Sherbie · Feb 9, 2012

I understand what you're saying, IDM. But what if the actual death occurred elsewhere and the hit was the result of transfer of decomp? I hate to even ponder such a thing because it would indicate something other than an accident or true kidnapping. But just to explore potential scenarios...

melissasmom · Feb 9, 2012

In da Middle said:
I, too, am wondering about the tape and dispenser the very most, but I also have a very, very hard time believing that if there was a dead baby there, it would be in just one spot. I don't think it is very likely that a body only stayed in one spot as in died in the spot and was never moved for any reason whatsoever like checking for signs of life or 'packaging' even. There should be more "spots" no matter what. I would think only unless the body was never moved at all and we know that is not the case because she is not there. I hope I explained that right.

I understand what you are saying. Lisa somehow died in that spot, then her body remained in that one spot the whole time, while "packaging" or whatever. That doesn't really seem logical. (not saying impossible, but I am real iffy on that) Also, if there was an accident, whether DB was drunk or not, you would think there would have been a very loud reaction from DB when she discovered Lisa deceased. You would think that seeing her baby dead would have made her start screaming, crying, etc. Even if she covered it up later, it doesn't make sense to me that she would have a)discovered her baby dead then b)very calmly and quietly disposed of her body. JMO

ETA: This theory would make no sense however, if you think that DB purposely killed Lisa. I know some here think that.

BetteDavisEyes · Feb 9, 2012

I'm as resolute in my beliefs now as I was in the previous survey when I posted this:

I voted someone in the house knows what happened and have never changed my initial reaction to Lisa's "disappearance". I believe that there was a horrible accident while DB was drinking and forgot about Lisa. The baby either fell out of her crib, choked on contents of her bottle or her own vomit, was given too much cold medicine in an effort to get her to sleep, or some other "accident" that ended in the little girl's death.

Deborah knew that she had been drinking heavily and that whatever happened was ostensibly her fault, so she got help from someone (brother, neighbor) to dispose of the body. DB didn't want to risk losing her son, and she also wants to stay with JI because he's her current meal-ticket. I don't think Jeremy had any responsibility in Lisa's demise, but he is covering for Deborah because he doesn't want to lose his son. I think Jeremy might have believed the kidnapping story at first, but he likely knows the truth now and is sticking to DB's version of what happened that night. jmo

Sherbie · Feb 9, 2012

I'm squishy in my beliefs. I find DB's statements and behavior suspect, and that - combined with the extremely unlikely kidnapping scenario and statistical improbability thereof - concerns me greatly. But without more evidence, I just can't say at this point that I believe with all my heart she is guilty of harming or disposing of Lisa. I do firmly believe, though, that she at the very least knows more than she has shared.

Lisa has been missing over four months now (poll)

My beliefs on who is responsible for taking Lisa four months ago

My beliefs are firm.

My beliefs are squishy (not undecided but not firm)

My beliefs are undecided

Former Member

of everything

New Member

True Crime Writer

of everything

United we stand, divided we fall.

Adji Desir, missing from Florida

New Member

United we stand, divided we fall.

Active Member

Active Member

of everything

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

of everything

Active Member

Active Member

Fasten your seatbelts...

Active Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics