I don't know why people are so sure about her not being taken. It happens more and more there is a sighting of a guy carrying the baby.. There is that guy on video. I think that she was taken by someone.
People want to blame the parents because that is the easiest thing to do. It is the safest way for this to end rather than believe someone stole her and she was never seen again. But I am in the camp of, UNTIL you can prove a parent hurt their child, Have evidence that a parent hurt that child, You don't blame the parents. You just don't.
It is not Casey Anthony. Who lied for 30 days and had a car that smelled like a dead body..
These people reported her missing asap.
I think of all the people that were falsely accused of doing something to their own child, Mark Klaas, the Smarts, Jessica L. From florida's dad.. I think about how far the police went to try and frame the Aisenbergs....
I just think you don't blame parents until you have proof.
I don't understand how people can be sure without actual evidence.
Oh, please, let me take this one! There is actual evidence, and there is A TON of circumstantial evidence. I'm going to start with the actual evidence, because I have a feeling that it is what you need to hear. Keeping in mind that 334 no body cases have been prosecuted since 1819 despite being largely circumstantial in terms of evidence, I believe that there is enough evidence to convict them with what prosecutors already have...unless they get stuck with a "CA-type" jury. So- the physical evidence: Picerno said that JI tried to call home that evening to let DB know that he would be late, but the call went to the phones service center and gave him a recording that told him that the phones were not in service. However, according to both Picerno and the phone company, the phones were able to receive incoming calls. That means that JI used one of the redlined (and reportedly stolen) phones to make that phone call, which means that the phones were not stolen, since he had it at work. (If he had used any other phone to make that call, it would have been an "incoming" call to DB, and the call would have gone through.) Now, the cadaver dog hit. Defense attorney's argue that the dogs hit on dirty diapers and toenail clippings- this is simply not the case. There are six types of service dogs in use in the US for this type of work:
Search Dog
A non-specific term referring to a canine trained for any type of searching based upon visual, olfactory, or auditory clues.
Tracking Dog
A canine with the specific ability and training to track and locate a specific human on the basis of scent.
Air-Scent Dog
A canine with the ability and training to locate the presence of a human in a particular area. This is the standard for dogs used in wilderness search for lost persons
Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a tracking or air-scent dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies.
Decomp Dog
A term used to describe a canine that will indicate when a scent source is human tissue, blood, semen, urine, feces, and materials that have been handled and worn by humans; often cross trained for other purposes.
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
The dog used in the search of the house was most assuredly a Forensic Search Dog- because the FBI was involved in the case by then, and would not have made the mistake of using the wrong kind of dog in such a high profile case. Guaranteed. And they will be able to prove that in court. The dog indicated that a death occured in that house, so a death most definitely occurred in that house. Then the defense will argue that carpet was not taken from the search, which is debatable, but not necessary to debate, because what they did take was a comforter and a cars-themed blanket, which indicates to a reasonable person that the scent came from one of those.
To be continued.......
