GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #11

[bessie]

Not unless you come into some sort of physical contact with human remains- and there is physical transference of biological matter.

A dog might smell ya- but an HRD dog shouldn't alert, unless biological matter is present.

I posted last week that in order to carry the scent from one location to another would require making contact with organic matter. Thank you for the confirmation.

 

[bessie]

From what I have read and understand the cross training of which you speak of possibly being a problem or causing the dog confusion.. I understand the cross training to be common that a dog is trained in more than one vein of searching(I.e.

respectfully snipped
No, Smooth. For this type of case, a canine trained exclusively as a cadaver dog is preferrred. As Oriah mentioned, cross-trained dogs are controversial in this situation. But, we know the Villa Rica group has such a dog, and until I'm told differently, I have to assume she was the 4-pawed sleuth used in the BH search.

 

[Oriah]

That is what I was afraid of. The agency they used seems to have a lot of cross trained dogs. That could be a problem in a court case because it could mean they hit on remnants of someone deceased or on something from a living person that may have been tracked in. It could be an issue later during the trial.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Not completely accurate, imo...

I didn't mean to imply that cross-trained dogs specifically would be an issue when used in a case that goes to criminal court... only that it is of great debate among SAR dog trainers and handlers. Issues that come into play in court generally have to do with the accuracy and consistancy of alerts.
Cross-trained dog 'hits' do tend to create more of a platform for debate- but that is due to the clarity and consistancy of their alert.

If you can prove that your dog has consistantly and clearly alerted only how and when- it should... you're good to go in the advent of a court case requiring 'hit' evidence.

That said- I'm not sure that the different dogs used in Lauren's case can hold up under that scrutiny.

That is just my opinion, of course.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

Haven't been able to read all through today's post. Apologize if this has been discussed. What are "scent particles?" Would this be like molecules of decomposition gases hanging around in the air?

I think it's scent articles, which is the item(s) that the dog uses to get the missing person's scent from, so that he knows what to track. They like personal objects that your smell would be all over...socks, favorite t-shirt, etc. When I was being found (as demonstrations w/my mom's friends), I gave these objects... (different places, different times - I think only one is needed):

my sweater
some (clean! lol) kleenex that I'd been carrying around in my jeans pocket
my sports watch
a scarf
my pillow

 

[bessie]

I think it's scent articles, which is the item(s) that the dog uses to get the missing person's scent from, so that he knows what to track. They like personal objects that your smell would be all over...socks, favorite t-shirt, etc. When I was being found (as demonstrations w/my mom's friends), I gave these objects... (different places, different times - I think only one is needed):

my sweater
some (clean! lol) kleenex that I'd been carrying around in my jeans pocket
my sports watch
a scarf
my pillow

I think you and Pearl are both correct. There are scent articles and scent particles, gas molecules. We shouldn't make any assumptions about their behavior, however, without learning more about them.

 

[Backwoods]

I think I missed Oriah's re-visit, but it has been very interesting reading through the posts.

Why, does everyone think, did the second dog search not check SM's apartment?

Some ideas --
(1) dogs were a different type of dog (training-wise) and LE did not feel results with 2nd team would be as valuable

(2) LE was satisfied with the results in SM's apartment from first search and did not want to risk discrediting it with possible contrary results from the 2nd search

(3) SM's "permission to search" was no longer in effect and LE did not yet have the proper search warrant to take the 2nd team in

Any other ideas?

 

[Knox]

I think some of the dog issues will remain debatable for now.

If there are problems with the integrity of the hits, how will this impact the case?

 

[3doglady]

I think I missed Oriah's re-visit, but it has been very interesting reading through the posts.

Why, does everyone think, did the second dog search not check SM's apartment?

Some ideas --
(1) dogs were a different type of dog (training-wise) and LE did not feel results with 2nd team would be as valuable

(2) LE was satisfied with the results in SM's apartment from first search and did not want to risk discrediting it with possible contrary results from the 2nd search

(3) SM's "permission to search" was no longer in effect and LE did not yet have the proper search warrant to take the 2nd team in

Any other ideas?

I think it's probably #3. I know in the Anthony case LE brought in a second dog to verify the hits the first dog got. The second dog hit in the same places. This was in the back yard a month after Caylee went missing. Beautiful dogs.

 

[Backwoods]

But how difficult would it have been to ask, "Are they your gloves?", "Did you leave them on the dryer?", and "Was it blood or paint on the gloves?" Actually, they probably did ask those questions, but the writing isn't clear.

I imagine part of the answer to this (as far as the reporters are concerned) may be that, since LE now has the gloves, it will be more credible and more impacting when LE/prosecution makes a statement about them and especially about whether it is blood/paint on them. Reporters may feel that at this point it is LE that needs to make that determination, not BB.

I agree, though, article comes across as quite cryptic, for no immediately apparent reason!

They have gone about as far as they can go, I guess (with the headline, the statement that BB uses this kind of gloves for painting, etc.) without taking the risk of looking not credible should it by chance happen that there is blood on there rather than paint.

 

[Backwoods]

I think some of the dog issues will remain debatable for now.

If there are problems with the integrity of the hits, how will this impact the case?

I don't know, except that several posters have said it is likely that this information may not even be introduced/emphasized if the case goes to trial with considerable more evidence for the prosecution to use -- that its importance was more for advancing the investigation in the early stages.

 

[3doglady]

I think some of the dog issues will remain debatable for now.

If there are problems with the integrity of the hits, how will this impact the case?

I think Bessie and Thinman posted (yesterday?) that Winters probably will not use the dogs because Buford can create doubt based on the same questions he had in the hearing.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Not completely accurate, imo...
*
I didn't mean to imply that cross-trained dogs specifically would be an issue when used in a case that goes to criminal court... only that it is of great debate among SAR dog trainers and handlers. Issues that come into play in court generally have to do with the accuracy and consistancy of alerts.*
Cross-trained dog 'hits' do tend to create more of a platform for debate- but that is due to the clarity and consistancy of their alert.
*
If you can prove that your dog has consistantly and clearly alerted only how and when- it should... you're good to go in the advent of a court case requiring 'hit' evidence.
*
That said- I'm not sure that the different dogs used in Lauren's case can hold up under that scrutiny.
*
That is just my opinion, of course.

Thank you, Oriah for coming over here to Lauren's thread and helping us to understand the skills of the varying search dogs.. * *I "think" I am finally getting a grasp on the cross training(much emphasis on the word think)..lol.. I was stuck in the frame of mind that the more additional and varied the training the better.. As if we were talking education and continued education and that the more the better..lol.. I now realize it is much the opposite and here in Lauren's case specifically the ideal situation would have been to have used straight up HRD/cadaver trained dogs rather than dogs that had been cross trained.. And I do trust your opinion on this subject so it is a "little" bothersome that you feel that if challenged that the dog used in this case and it's alerts may not "hold up".. However, I am confident that investigators, LE, GBI, and FBI, along with the DA's office will have a substantial amount of hard evidence against Stephen and in tying Stephen to Lauren's murder.. So, with that said I am Hoping that the commitment hearing was actually the last that we'd be hearing about the HRD dogs ATLEAST within the actual court proceedings.. Meaning I, agree with the others who commented that they felt it likely that the dogs and their searches would not actually be used or presented as evidence when this goes to trial, but rather their main purpose has already been served as an investigative tool..*

ATLEAST thats what I am hoping and praying is the case.. I think alot of us are just really gun shy at the moment.. So soon after the Anthony trial and it's disastrous outcome that we fear greatly that what if it were to somehow repeat itself again in this case??!!??!!

Eeeekkk!!!!!! Just terrifying and makes you all the more want to make damn certain the case is not only solid in proving and tying Stephen directly to this heinous murder... But you also want to ensure that there's nothing that comes across as confusing, could be misconstrued, and therefor misunderstood by members of the jury.. I want it as elementary and basic as possible!! I want them to be able to as clear as day see the big picture, clearly and concisely be able to connect the dots, and just all around understand clearly that the defendant is guilty without getting lost in the rhetoric and in the defense's manipulations.. I just don't know if I could bear it for this precious family if there were infact a duplicate miscarriage of justice as little Caylee is forever left never to receive the justice she deserves on her behalf.. I don't know if I could bear it for where that would leave this irreparably broken family, the Giddings..

Much thanks to you, Oriah for taking time to come teach us a thing or two and allow us to pick your brain for a short while!! We greatly appreciate it

 

[3doglady]

I imagine part of the answer to this (as far as the reporters are concerned) may be that, since LE now has the gloves, it will be more credible and more impacting when LE/prosecution makes a statement about them and especially about whether it is blood/paint on them. Reporters may feel that at this point it is LE that needs to make that determination, not BB.

I agree, though, article comes across as quite cryptic, for no immediately apparent reason!

I would think that paint on gloves would be easily recognizable as paint. Stain would look more like blood. I wear the blue gloves to paint in. (I'm an artist) Even oil paint doesn't look like blood on them. It could be Buford knew it wasn't blood but just wanted to use it in the hearing.

 

[Backwoods]

I would think that paint on gloves would be easily recognizable as paint. Stain would look more like blood.

Good point, I think so too

 

[Backwoods]

I think it's probably #3. I know in the Anthony case LE brought in a second dog to verify the hits the first dog got. The second dog hit in the same places. This was in the back yard a month after Caylee went missing. Beautiful dogs.

about what I bolded: I believe the pdf article about the carpet square study posted earlier in this thread makes the point that bringing in a second team is considered good investigative practice. (That's what got me wondering why the second team didn't go in SM's apartment.)

 

[3doglady]

about what I bolded: I believe the pdf article about the carpet square study posted earlier in this thread makes the point that bringing in a second team is considered good investigative practice. (That's what got me wondering why the second team didn't go in SM's apartment.)

I can't remember exactly what was said in the hearing. I know SM gave permission the first time. Didn't Buford ask something about a special warrant was needed for dogs? Dang, I may have to listen to that hearing again.

 

[bessie]

I imagine part of the answer to this (as far as the reporters are concerned) may be that, since LE now has the gloves, it will be more credible and more impacting when LE/prosecution makes a statement about them and especially about whether it is blood/paint on them. Reporters may feel that at this point it is LE that needs to make that determination, not BB.

I agree, though, article comes across as quite cryptic, for no immediately apparent reason!

They have gone about as far as they can go, I guess (with the headline, the statement that BB uses this kind of gloves for painting, etc.) without taking the risk of looking not credible should it by chance happen that there is blood on there rather than paint.

I concede an answer about the stain, blood vs paint, should come from LE. But BB is the only one who can tell us whether or not she put a pair of "same such" gloves on the dryer. If the Telegraph is going to broach the subject, then they should ask the right questions. Questions too sensitive? Then lay off the topic entirely. :snooty:
(Snooty face not aimed at you, Backwoods. )

 

[3doglady]

Patterson testified that Tracy Sargent and her HRD dog searched the first time.
http://www.k9sars.org/Instructor.html

 

[bessie]

Patterson testified that Tracy Sargent and her HRD dog searched the first time.
http://www.k9sars.org/Instructor.html

Yes, he did. But which HRD dog? I think I counted four on her site with HRD training. Cody is the only one trained exclusively in HRD, but Cinco's credentials are mighty impressive.

 

[Backwoods]

I concede an answer about the stain, blood vs paint, should come from LE. But BB is the only one who can tell us whether or not she put a pair of "same such" gloves on the dryer. If the Telegraph is going to broach the subject, then they should ask the right questions. Questions too sensitive? Then lay off the topic entirely. :snooty:
(Snooty face not aimed at you, Backwoods. )

I rather agree!