Dan Rassier: Former POI **Wrongly accused**

Status
Not open for further replies.
But that's perfectly acceptable in a search warrant. That's exactly what cadaver dogs are for - to give investigators a clue where to look. Its like sniffer dogs at an airport, if a sniffer dog trained to scent drugs barks at you, that gives the officers a reason to search and question you, but if they find nothing they let you go. They don't arrest you anyway and expect your defence to explain the dog bark. Some posters here effectively do just that when they quote "but the cadaver dog alerted..." as a reason to suspect someone, despite the fact that the dog alert didn't lead to anything.

We don't know if it lead to anything - that's what the poster was asking. And then another poster said that back then, they couldn't do much with it because techniques weren't advanced enough. So, now we're wondering if they ever did or will do anything with it. They still have samples. IMO it's really not that odd for people to wonder where the blood and cadaver scent came from. Knowing the answer to one might help in determining the answer to the other. As far as I can tell nobody said anything about the owner of the place needing to be arrested - only that there is this interesting piece of info in a warrant and what was done with it or will be done.
 
We don't know if it lead to anything - that's what the poster was asking. And then another poster said that back then, they couldn't do much with it because techniques weren't advanced enough. So, now we're wondering if they ever did or will do anything with it. They still have samples. IMO it's really not that odd for people to wonder where the blood and cadaver scent came from. Knowing the answer to one might help in determining the answer to the other. As far as I can tell nobody said anything about the owner of the place needing to be arrested - only that there is this interesting piece of info in a warrant and what was done with it or will be done.

Hopefully nothing. Why on earth would they be continuing to investigate an innocent man on the excuse of dog alerts and something that may or may not have been blood spots in an outhouse. Crime labs are backed up as it is, without making them test something that's got no discernible connection to any crime.
 
Hopefully nothing. Why on earth would they be continuing to investigate an innocent man on the excuse of dog alerts and something that may or may not have been blood spots in an outhouse. Crime labs are backed up as it is, without making them test something that's got no discernible connection to any crime.

Because if the tech was available back then they would have. Why not now? Somewhere at the bottom of a list, of course, because there is no rush. Or, maybe things were tested/questions were asked, and the answers fell through the cracks somehow.

But honestly I don't care if they do or not, or did or not. It's just something that jumps out in that warrant, especially with the long list of both dogs' credentials, and people are curious. It's okay to be curious.
 
Because if the tech was available back then they would have. Why not now? Somewhere at the bottom of a list, of course, because there is no rush. Or, maybe things were tested/questions were asked, and the answers fell through the cracks somehow.

But honestly I don't care if they do or not, or did or not. It's just something that jumps out in that warrant, especially with the long list of both dogs' credentials, and people are curious. It's okay to be curious.

Because we now know it to be irrelevant to Jacob's disappearance, and the crime is solved. There's also no discernible connection to any other crime, so no reason to test it.
 
I'm going to respectfully disagree with what you have said. The scent the dogs alerted to could not have been 'anything' as you have stated. Cadaver dogs are trained to alert only to the scent of human remains. They would not have alerted to urine or blood of a dead mouse or cat or dog or any other animal. They're specifically trained NOT to do that.

I have been used as a "scent article" in more than one training drill with my skill sets in tracking and evasion. Cadaver dogs have hit on me when I have been covered in leaves and forrest debris. They even hit on me when my hiding place was misted in fox urine to throw them off. And since I have been doing this for over a tad over 50 years, including managing air and ground scent dogs on SAR missions, I am most respectfully going to disagree with you. Oddly enough, I had an explosives dog alert on my travel bag when I was in Philly International. I was detained until the bag was swabbed and found clean. I have never had anything even close to explosives, gunpowder etc anywhere near the bag in question.
 
I think that using the name "cadaver dog" confuses people and that's why I use the more accurate name of HRD (human remains detection) dogs. These dogs will alert to decomposing human blood which obviously can be left by a live person and not just a "cadaver".

Human blood from dog handlers is often used in training them because obtaining actual human remains is difficult or illegal. JMO
 
I have been used as a "scent article" in more than one training drill with my skill sets in tracking and evasion. Cadaver dogs have hit on me when I have been covered in leaves and forrest debris. They even hit on me when my hiding place was misted in fox urine to throw them off. And since I have been doing this for over a tad over 50 years, including managing air and ground scent dogs on SAR missions, I am most respectfully going to disagree with you. Oddly enough, I had an explosives dog alert on my travel bag when I was in Philly International. I was detained until the bag was swabbed and found clean. I have never had anything even close to explosives, gunpowder etc anywhere near the bag in question.

If cadaver dogs, dogs trained to alert to explosives, dogs trained to alert to drugs, etc., were as unreliable as you and others seem to indicate, law enforcement agencies would not spend thousands of dollars on training the dogs and retaining them. If a cadaver dog is taken into a field to search for a body and hits on the scent of every dead animal in the field, it would be alerting to every dead rabbit, gopher, mouse, and bird---in other words, all over the whole field. They don't do that. They're trained specifically not to do that. I could site examples of their importance and successes but I'd use up all the available bandwidth at WS. We'll have to agree to disagree.
 
If cadaver dogs, dogs trained to alert to explosives, dogs trained to alert to drugs, etc., were as unreliable as you and others seem to indicate, law enforcement agencies would not spend thousands of dollars on training the dogs and retaining them. If a cadaver dog is taken into a field to search for a body and hits on the scent of every dead animal in the field, it would be alerting to every dead rabbit, gopher, mouse, and bird---in other words, all over the whole field. They don't do that. They're trained specifically not to do that. I could site examples of their importance and successes but I'd use up all the available bandwidth at WS. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't know about HRD dogs, but tests done on dogs trained to sniff out drugs and explosives have shown a failure rate of up to 85%. The top reason given by researchers for the dogs' inaccuracy rate is something called the "Clever Hans" effect, named after a horse whose owner claimed he could do maths only for psychologists to determine that the horse was responding to his owner's unwitting cues.

If handlers can accidentally cue drug sniffer dogs, I expect they can also cue HRD dogs.
 
Hopefully nothing. Why on earth would they be continuing to investigate an innocent man on the excuse of dog alerts and something that may or may not have been blood spots in an outhouse. Crime labs are backed up as it is, without making them test something that's got no discernible connection to any crime.

You are continually saying 'investigating an innocent man.' This is to imply that the dog alerts, the chest, the umbrella stand and the chaise lounge would be concretely connected to the owner of these objects. As I've already posted, a farm can be infiltrated by whomever without the knowledge of the farm owner.

The absolute proof of that is the farm where Jacob's remains were found. That is a fact.

It's also a fact that DH is an admitted murderer, a proven liar and deceptive. Because of these FACTS, it is my humble opinion that there is more to HIS story than he has confessed to. There is the TRUTH out there somewhere.

What I am 'investigating' or looking at are these odd facts in this case. I want to know more and rightly so. If that line of thinking didn't work, this case would have NEVER been solved. That's a fact too.

Revisiting the facts of the case is not casting shadows on an innocent man. It's simply revisiting the facts of the case. For all we know, something happened at that farm due to DH. And poor DR certainly never knew about it. I believe that was what DR was trying to get across when he was making his awkward comments about how he had plenty of time and places on the farm to do something. He wasn't saying he did anything, he was acknowledging that on a farm there are lots of opportunities for anyone to do something.
 
I have been used as a "scent article" in more than one training drill with my skill sets in tracking and evasion. Cadaver dogs have hit on me when I have been covered in leaves and forrest debris. They even hit on me when my hiding place was misted in fox urine to throw them off. And since I have been doing this for over a tad over 50 years, including managing air and ground scent dogs on SAR missions, I am most respectfully going to disagree with you. Oddly enough, I had an explosives dog alert on my travel bag when I was in Philly International. I was detained until the bag was swabbed and found clean. I have never had anything even close to explosives, gunpowder etc anywhere near the bag in question.


(Bowing to your lengthy years of experience with SAR dogs). Sometimes the trouble with understanding an alert comes from the fact that the dog cannot tell us exactly WHAT it is they are smelling. Or alerting to. I will not go into my experience with dogs on this matter, however I do know that we, as humans often times minimize or dismiss information when we don't understand it.

You do not know if the dogs were alerting to YOU or to something on those leaves or something on that ground. There may have very well been something on that forest ground that triggered an alert. We will never know because we cannot ask the dogs and you are assuming that they were hitting on you.

The fact that they hit on you even when you were misted with fox urine tells me that the dogs smelled something and went with their training.

Can dogs be wrong? Of course. It would be foolish to sit here and say dogs cannot be wrong.

As far as your travel bag is concerned? You just never know. You easily could have picked up some sort of trace material somewhere you don't even know about. In a hotel, from a hotel floor, carpet, anything. Swabs are designed with a threshold that doesn't remotely consider what a dog's scent threshold is. The swab comes back and says your bag is 'clean' because of the calibration thresholds established to determine these things. We already know that dogs can smell minute trace, most likely far lower than lab result thresholds.

The fact is that our items come in contact with just countless other objects all day long especially when we travel and we don't pay attention to it. That's the truth and the proof is with bedbugs or virus, a hundred other contagion type transfer issues.

If you ever wonder if that is true, take some Dawn dish soap and put a drop of it on the bottom of your luggage while you are in a hotel room. Pick up and set down that luggage, forget about the dish soap. Before you leave the room, take a black light and shine it and you will be astonished at how that tiny drop of dish soap has transferred to a variety of surfaces in the room.
 
If cadaver dogs, dogs trained to alert to explosives, dogs trained to alert to drugs, etc., were as unreliable as you and others seem to indicate, law enforcement agencies would not spend thousands of dollars on training the dogs and retaining them. If a cadaver dog is taken into a field to search for a body and hits on the scent of every dead animal in the field, it would be alerting to every dead rabbit, gopher, mouse, and bird---in other words, all over the whole field. They don't do that. They're trained specifically not to do that. I could site examples of their importance and successes but I'd use up all the available bandwidth at WS. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Excellent post.

Perhaps a different thread just dedicated to the use of cadaver dogs? Then we could discuss the subject to thread bare without the implication that we are throwing stones at the innocent.
 
When I was a teenager, not far from where I lived, a child went missing. The remains were found in an area that had been gone over umpteen times by cadaver dogs without the dogs picking up her scent. The police didn't investigate when a volunteer searcher said he noticed a patch of raised ground where it looked to him like something had been buried because they thought the dogs had already "cleared" that area. The remains were only recovered because the volunteer searcher went and got a shovel after dark and dug it up himself.
 
When I was a teenager, not far from where I lived, a child went missing. The remains were found in an area that had been gone over umpteen times by cadaver dogs without the dogs picking up her scent. The police didn't investigate when a volunteer searcher said he noticed a patch of raised ground where it looked to him like something had been buried because they thought the dogs had already "cleared" that area. The remains were only recovered because the volunteer searcher went and got a shovel after dark and dug it up himself.

Was the crime solved? If not, FBI profiling would strongly suggest to look at the volunteer.
 
When I was a teenager, not far from where I lived, a child went missing. The remains were found in an area that had been gone over umpteen times by cadaver dogs without the dogs picking up her scent. The police didn't investigate when a volunteer searcher said he noticed a patch of raised ground where it looked to him like something had been buried because they thought the dogs had already "cleared" that area. The remains were only recovered because the volunteer searcher went and got a shovel after dark and dug it up himself.

Woah. He did this in the dark? I mean I'm probably wrong, but I'm just sayin'
 
Isn't it time to lock this thread up? The facts are Dan was falsely accused by MANY people, there was absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that he had anything to do with this crime and will be well compensated as a result.

Sillybilly lock this one up.
 
Isn't it time to lock this thread up? The facts are Dan was falsely accused by MANY people, there was absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that he had anything to do with this crime and will be well compensated as a result.

Sillybilly lock this one up.

Yes. The fact is real, this guy doesn't deserve this here. He's a teacher in a new year. We've got to let this go.
 
I think DR is handling things better every day now. I wouldn't be surprised if he just suddenly forgives everybody.
 
I think DR is handling things better every day now. I wouldn't be surprised if he just suddenly forgives everybody.

I wouldn't be surprised either. He probably realizes it would be an uphill battle with all the double personality comments, and remarks about how he didn't think he could do this. It's probably just better to be glad it's over and move on. I'm sure the Wetterlings would appreciate it also.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
4,115
Total visitors
4,280

Forum statistics

Threads
592,580
Messages
17,971,269
Members
228,825
Latest member
JustFab
Back
Top