Hotel Cecil Rooftop K-9 Search

[Sillybilly]

LOL!!
That's not unpaid. That's one of the best paid positions around. Even if there's no money involved.

Thank you.

Yep ... following yer bliss don't lead ya to the bank

 

[Oriah]

Yep ... following yer bliss don't lead ya to the bank

True 'nuff... but it sure does lead to a life of goodness- and at the end of the day, you can't take anything else with ya except for a life well lived.
Thank you for caring so much about missing persons that you will sit in the rain and 'hide' so that others may live.

 

[Borris]

Hi Oriah, thanks for sharing your expertise with us.

I am still not entirely clear on this issue. I do not question whether HRD type of dogs could locate her body. I'm am sure of that, as human remains continuously gives off odor. But I am wondering whether tracking dogs could trail her living scent that was left after 5 days on a concrete roof. As you know, the record for trailing is 13 days, and this was in ideal conditions, moist vegetation (odor of crushed plants), and they used cadaver dogs to find three souls deceased. According to one website, most successful attempts at tracking living scent are those trails which exist a few hours to a few days old, with worse chances in urban settings.

I'm concerned about this particular search, because the water tank area forms a natural sun/wind barrier to hold scent, and with all the structure underneath and in-between, including items such as a wooden ladder that she would have climbed, it seems an ideal place to improve ones chances if they were to locate a living scent so old.

But this area seems hard to climb in and out of, especially for dogs considering all the pipes and faucet handles that run both parallel and perpendicular to the ground. Would tracking dogs need to be hand-carried in or up ladders to be placed on the top of the tanks themselves -- or on top of the equipment room roof to improve chances?

The roof is also covered with the scent of chlorine that is added from high a-top the water tanks on a regular basis in order to purify the water -- and may be stored on the roof? Can the odor of chlorine mask living scent in an urban setting?

(Thanks sb, for your initiative.)

 

[jetsetsam]

The way I read this is that Oriah is saying that the dog used by the police should have been able to detect scent on the roof in the vicinity of the tanks in any of the four scenarios presented by sillybilly.

If they found scent at the 15th floor base of any of the external fire escapes, or at the base of the internal roof access stair, they would have followed it up to the roof, expecting to find more scent.

So what's the general conclusion?


That the body entered the tank after the initial dog search?

 

[Sillybilly]

The roof is also covered with the scent of chlorine that is added from high a-top the water tanks on a regular basis in order to purify the water -- and may be stored on the roof? Can the odor of chlorine mask living scent in an urban setting?

<rsbm>

Where'd all that come from? It was said that the water is chlorinated water that comes in from the city system. Even if they added chlorine in the top of the tanks, the roof would not be covered with chlorine. It's stored on the roof?

 

[bessie]

FYI: This site is a go-to for me. Those of you who are curious about science and like to read studies will find it useful.

http://pawsoflife.org/Library/generalscent.html

 

[Borris]

<rsbm>

Where'd all that come from? It was said that the water is chlorinated water that comes in from the city system. Even if they added chlorine in the top of the tanks, the roof would not be covered with chlorine. It's stored on the roof?

I'm asking whether the roof would be contaminated with the scent of chlorine relative to a dog's nose if chlorine was added on a regular basis to the water tanks, and maybe stored on the roof. I'm not sure where the chlorine for the water tanks is stored which is why I used a question mark. What's common sense tell you? Do you think they carry it up from the basement, or do you think there's a storage place up on the roof, near to the place where they'd use it? And they do use it.

Water tanks build up gunk, and so they have to be maintained on a regular basis - washed out and chlorinated.

In addition, the city of Los Angeles allows chlorine to be added to water tanks in order to keep the water safe to drink. As observed by noodled - one of the tanks appears to have bleach spill-over. Do you agree?

-- This is from the municipal code:

"11.38.440 - Chlorination—Recordkeeping and testing.

All suppliers of domestic water, when required by the director to use continuous chlorination, shall add chlorine in sufficient quantity to insure the bacteriological safety of the water at all points in the distribution system. A free-chlorine residual shall be maintained at all times at sampling points approved by the director. Routine chlorine residual tests shall be made daily, and permanent records kept of such tests. Copies of the records shall be furnished the director upon request.

(Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 5 § 511, 1959.) "

( Thanks Bessie! )

 

[Conductor71]

have no idea how they missed her, to be honest. Unless she didn't walk up there on her own, and they only used a tracking or trailing dog initially.

So... I suspect she was in the water source shortly after her disappearance; they tried to track her, which was ineffective because that scent was gone.

The HR scent would still have remained- but perhaps LE did not have access to an HRD dog?

have no idea how they missed her, to be honest. Unless she didn't walk up there on her own, and they only used a tracking or trailing dog initially.

So... I suspect she was in the water source shortly after her disappearance; they tried to track her, which was ineffective because that scent was gone.

The HR scent would still have remained- but perhaps LE did not have access to an HRD dog?

I think you have given us some good info that may weaken the idea of suicide or accident.

Since tracking dogs could not trace her and you think given that she was in the tank shortly after her disappearance could this rule out suicide or an accident. Whatever fate that poor young girl met it just seems that if she put herself in the tank or fell in the dog would have detected a trail somewhere on the roof between the hotel and tank. Does it also support the idea she may have been carried?

Does this seem viable?

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm asking whether the roof would be contaminated with the scent of chlorine relative to a dog's nose if chlorine was added on a regular basis to the water tanks, and maybe stored on the roof. I'm not sure where the chlorine for the water tanks is stored which is why I used a question mark. What's common sense tell you? Do you think they carry it up from the basement, or do you think there's a storage place up on the roof, near to the place where they'd use it? And they do use it.

Water tanks build up gunk, and so they have to be maintained on a regular basis - washed out and chlorinated.

In addition, the city of Los Angeles allows chlorine to be added to water tanks in order to keep the water safe to drink. As observed by noodled - one of the tanks appears to have bleach spill-over. Do you agree?

-- This is from the municipal code:

"11.38.440 - Chlorination&#8212;Recordkeeping and testing.

All suppliers of domestic water, when required by the director to use continuous chlorination, shall add chlorine in sufficient quantity to insure the bacteriological safety of the water at all points in the distribution system. A free-chlorine residual shall be maintained at all times at sampling points approved by the director. Routine chlorine residual tests shall be made daily, and permanent records kept of such tests. Copies of the records shall be furnished the director upon request.

(Ord. 7583 Part 3 Ch. 5 § 511, 1959.) "

( Thanks Bessie! )

IMO, you stated it as an established fact in your previous post, and it was very misleading.

The tanks are fed by the municipal/city water system which is already chlorinated. No additional chlorination is required unless there is a specific health concern, and then it is dealt with by an order from the Director. Section 11.38.430 that your reference is preceded by:

from:
http://search.municode.com/html/16274/

11.38.410 - Sanitary defects and health hazards&#8212;Correction.

When it is determined by the director that a sanitary defect or a health hazard exists, the director may order whatever steps he deems necessary to insure the safety of the water supply for the protection of the public health.

11.38.430 - Chlorination&#8212;Required when&#8212;Procedures.

Upon notice by the director to the owner or operator of a water supply system, such owner or operator shall thoroughly cleanse and chlorinate any reservoir, tank, well, spring or pipe used in the production, distribution or storage of any domestic water or water used for human consumption, as directed by the director, to insure the safety of the water. When chemical disinfection is employed, the dosage or rates of application shall at all times be sufficient to provide adequately disinfected water at all points of the distribution system. The director may order continuous automatic disinfection for any water supply when, in his opinion, such treatment is necessary for the protection of the public health.

The above "Sanitary Defects and Health Hazards" and subsequent issuance of an Order by the Director (i.e. re additional chlorination) only would have occurred AFTER it was determined that Elisa's body was in the water tank.

I've read through the entire section of the code. IMO, there is nothing in the code that sets out additional chlorination as part of an ongoing maintenance program.

Sorry Borris, the roof was not covered in bleach as you previously stated, and there is no reason to believe that bleach even enters into the picture.

MOO

 

[noodled1]

LA city has it's own water codes I believe through the Department of Water and Power


Not sure how they differ from county codes you folks posted but if they're like everything else the city does in comparison to the county they'll be different...lol

 

[jetsetsam]

"This means likely she was carried out and nude when put in the tank....also most likely already deceased."

I didn't draw the same conclusion from reading Oriah's comments.

Oriah seems to be saying that if someone came into contact with EL, even if it was to remove her clothes, and/or put her in a bag, alive or dead, that person would have acquired enough of EL's scent to track it up to the roof, in order for them to put the body in the tank.

I would appreciate some clarification from Oriah on this.

If the police dog did not respond to any of EL's scent on the accesses to the roof (stairs/ladders), or on the roof itself, does this leave only the scenario that her body entered the tank after the initial search with a dog, or does it still leave open any of the 4 scenarios identfied by sillybilly? That the body was in the tank before the search, but EL's scent was not identified by the dog?

 

[Shlock Homes]

I think they brought in the dogs to see if she had ever been up there, not necessarily to locate her. Lets face it, looking at the roof images, there aren't too many places to hide.

What bothers me is why aren't the police saying if they searched the tanks or not. The only place that a body could be concealed on that rooftop would be in the tanks. Even if the dogs didn't react to any scent, did that really matter? If the only hiding places were the maintenance room and those tanks, wouldn't proper police procedure be to search the tanks? Would they need warrants to open those lids?

 

[Conductor71]

If they brought an air scent K9 up to the roof (OR an HRD K9, OR a cross trained dog) I have no idea how they missed her, to be honest. Unless she didn't walk up there on her own, and they only used a tracking or trailing dog initially.

"This means likely she was carried out and nude when put in the tank....also most likely already deceased."

I didn't draw the same conclusion from reading Oriah's comments.

Oriah seems to be saying that if someone came into contact with EL, even if it was to remove her clothes, and/or put her in a bag, alive or dead, that person would have acquired enough of EL's scent to track it up to the roof, in order for them to put the body in the tank.

I would appreciate some clarification from Oriah on this.

Yes, clarification would be very helpful. I was not concluding but rather making inferences based on Oriah's expertise.

My understanding of what Oriah is saying is that because scent area dogs and human remains dogs can hone right in scents without needing a trail it is more probable that LE used the most basic form of SAR, the tracking dog, which requires a direct ground trail from the hotel to the tank.

He says more sophisticated abilities like air scenting and human remain scenting dogs would have surely found her, so they must have used only tracking dogs. Those dogs did not pick up on her presence because she didn't walk up there on her own.

I would infer from this that she was carried. It is unlikely that the perp would have scent of EL on him at a ground level and if she walked with him, why would there be nothing for the dog to track? If she were still alive at that time, he would need her to be quiet and compliant.

My other inference on clothing is off base because it would require an air scenting dog to locate every place she was on the roof.

At the very least, if I understand Oriah and have my facts right on trailing, this may rule out suicide or accidental death because a tracking dog would have nailed a direct path for EL if she had done that by her check out on Feb 1st. Not sure?

Seems like LE could have used more sophisticated locating measures as she was missing nearly a week.

 

[jetsetsam]

Has LE stated when or on what date they used a dog to search for EL on the roof? Or how many days after her disappearance?

Assuming they used a tracking dog, and assuming they used the dog on all the floors, including down the halls on the 15th floor to the base of the fire escape ladders to the roof, and the base of the stairway to the roof, and the elevator, if it does go to the roof, and presumably found nothing that would draw them to the roof, then yes it does seem to lead to that she didn't go up to the roof willingly, but was carried up in some state or other.

If her scent led to the base of one of the accesses to the roof, you'd think they would have done a more thorough search of the roof, including around and looking into the tanks.

But they didn't look too hard.

Or the body wasn't up there until after the search with the dog.

Did LE know from the video that she was at the elevator on the 14th floor about the time she disappeared, and tried to track her scent from there, or was it only a few weeks later that they had the video? And didn't try any more tracking, or couldn't find any scent?

 

[jetsetsam]

Back again:

If they tracked through all of the hotel, they should have picked up her scent outside the elevator on the 14th floor, even before they had the video. And followed the scent to wherever she went. Before she was picked up from the floor and disappeared up to the tank. If she didn't drown in the tank, was she killed while she was held off the floor, and then carried to the tank?

Seems a bit much.

 

[jetsetsam]

So someone encountered her in the hall, picked her up and carried her to somewhere, that the police couldn't later go into with the dog to find her scent, immobilized her or killed her, and then carried her up to the tank?

Sounds like one of the long-term residents of the hotel who lives on one of the top floors of the hotel.

 

[Conductor71]

Has LE stated when or on what date they used a dog to search for EL on the roof? Or how many days after her disappearance?

Answer:

Jan 31 2013 Elisa disappeared (some account say early morning hours of Feb To our knowledge, the last recorded siting of her was as she left the elevator inside the Cecil Hotel.

Feb 6 2013 LAPD went public with her disappearance and said the hotel had been searched with dogs (Note: specific date of search and type of dog are not known)

If her scent led to the base of one of the accesses to the roof, you'd think they would have done a more thorough search of the roof, including around and looking into the tanks.

But they didn't look too hard.

Did LE know from the video that she was at the elevator on the 14th floor about the time she disappeared, and tried to track her scent from there, or was it only a few weeks later that they had the video? And didn't try any more tracking, or couldn't find any scent?

You would think. I do believe her parents were in LA on Feb 6th; that is the date of the press release. LAPD only became involved after "nudged" by Interpol, and it looks to me that a minimal, routine search for EL was made (jmo).

At that time, it was reported that a comprehensive search of the hotel was not made as they had no probable cause that a crime was committed.


Investigators searched the roof of the hotel with the aid of dogs when Lam was first reported missing. Sgt. Rudy Lopez said he didn't know if the tanks were examined.

Lopez said he didn't know if the tanks were examined.

"We did a very thorough search of the hotel," he said. "But we didn't search every room; we could only do that if we had probable cause" that a crime had been committed.

LA Times Blog

Umm, how could Lopez "not know"?

 

[Oriah]

Yes, clarification would be very helpful. I was not concluding but rather making inferences based on Oriah's expertise.

My understanding of what Oriah is saying is that because scent area dogs and human remains dogs can hone right in scents without needing a trail it is more probable that LE used the most basic form of SAR, the tracking dog, which requires a direct ground trail from the hotel to the tank.

He says more sophisticated abilities like air scenting and human remain scenting dogs would have surely found her, so they must have used only tracking dogs. Those dogs did not pick up on her presence because she didn't walk up there on her own.

I would infer from this that she was carried. It is unlikely that the perp would have scent of EL on him at a ground level and if she walked with him, why would there be nothing for the dog to track? If she were still alive at that time, he would need her to be quiet and compliant.

My other inference on clothing is off base because it would require an air scenting dog to locate every place she was on the roof.

At the very least, if I understand Oriah and have my facts right on trailing, this may rule out suicide or accidental death because a tracking dog would have nailed a direct path for EL if she had done that by her check out on Feb 1st. Not sure?

Seems like LE could have used more sophisticated locating measures as she was missing nearly a week.

BBM: Yes, this is what I was trying to say. Sorry if I confused. There are many different factors that go into scent discrimination.

The reason why I mentioned clothing or material; if she was deceased prior to ending up in the water tank, and any contact was had with materials that she was in contact with after death, an HRD dog should alert to that material. For example, someone who dies in their bed at night- their bedding contains HR scent which an HRD K9 will alert to. A single discipline tracking or trailing dog should not alert there. They would lose the scent at the bed.

Imvho, a properly trained HRD K9 would have alerted to the water tank. A trailing or tracking K9- not necessarily- and it is very common to bring out trailing or tracking dogs in MP cases where there is no evidence to indicate a death.
So I think it very likely that LE brought a tracking or trailing K9 to the roof.
If that's the case- it's not something LE did wrong, just something that maybe could have been augmented by utilizing a dog trained in a different discipline.

But since we don't know what dog(s) were used, it's pretty hard to determine. Kwim?

 

[Oriah]

Hi Oriah, thanks for sharing your expertise with us.

I am still not entirely clear on this issue. I do not question whether HRD type of dogs could locate her body. I'm am sure of that, as human remains continuously gives off odor. But I am wondering whether tracking dogs could trail her living scent that was left after 5 days on a concrete roof. As you know, the record for trailing is 13 days, and this was in ideal conditions, moist vegetation (odor of crushed plants), and they used cadaver dogs to find three souls deceased. According to one website, most successful attempts at tracking living scent are those trails which exist a few hours to a few days old, with worse chances in urban settings.

I'm concerned about this particular search, because the water tank area forms a natural sun/wind barrier to hold scent, and with all the structure underneath and in-between, including items such as a wooden ladder that she would have climbed, it seems an ideal place to improve ones chances if they were to locate a living scent so old.

But this area seems hard to climb in and out of, especially for dogs considering all the pipes and faucet handles that run both parallel and perpendicular to the ground. Would tracking dogs need to be hand-carried in or up ladders to be placed on the top of the tanks themselves -- or on top of the equipment room roof to improve chances?

The roof is also covered with the scent of chlorine that is added from high a-top the water tanks on a regular basis in order to purify the water -- and may be stored on the roof? Can the odor of chlorine mask living scent in an urban setting?

(Thanks sb, for your initiative.)

Has the time of death been determined?

5 days on a concrete surface does retain live scent, imvho, but it's very dependant on environmental and physical conditions. Does anyone know if she was wearing footwear when found?

 

[jetsetsam]

I'm getting more and more perplexed by what LE didn't find with a tracking dog.

The fact that they used a dog at all implies that their dog could identify her scent from something. Her personal belongings in her room and perhaps used bed clothes on the bed? Used towels?

So let's assume that the dog could identify her scent at her room.

Then what?

Did the dog identify her scent at the elevator on the 14th floor?

She came into view of the elevator camera from the left, and at the end of the video turned to the left.

So could they track her scent to the left of the elevator?

Did they identify her scent anywhere else in the hotel?

Apparently they didn't identify her scent at any of the access points to the roof, or they would have searched the roof more thoroughly.

It would seem logical to identify or track her scent in different parts of the hotel, map it, and then draw conclusions from that for further seaching or investigation.

But it's almost as if they walked around the hotel with a dog and then did nothing except interview hotel guests and staff.

Which seems to imply that they found nothing with the dog anywhere in the hotel except what they found in her room.

And then concluded that she had left the hotel?