CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #49

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my opinion - before we knew Dylan's family had started the new search last week, April 16th, some were seeing the recent arrest of Deputy Sutter on April 22nd and the LE coffer dam search as coincidental.

In my opinion, since we now know the search began before Sutter's arrest and LE was working in correlation with Dylan's family, that coincidence can be ruled out. LE was not out searching because of a tip related to Sutter's arrest. LE was assisting Dylan's family.

BBM. Sutter was arrested on April 9, bonded out on April 10.

We don't know what happened to Dylan. LE hasn't ruled out anyone as having involvement (although they have stated that they don't consider Elaine or Mark as suspects).

I have by no means ruled out Jason Sutter, and won't until LE does. He's among the top ones on my list.

All my opinion. I respect yours.
 
It's my belief that HRD dogs were taken to MR's home and also were used in MR's vehicles. There is no link, it's my opinion based on investigative techniques. It's also my opinion that MR could not have moved a "deceased" Dylan without leaving a trace scent that dogs could have hit on. There are no reports of HRD hits in or around Mark's home or other property. While this doesn't preclude Dylan being disabled from a wound that left no outward/discoverable evidence, I tend to believe that whatever happened to Dylan did not happen at his father's home. If Dylan is in that reservoir, and that's a big IF, I still do not think that such a discovery points to his father without corroborating evidence.

I do not want Dylan to be in the water. No way, no how. Besides HRD dog alerts, there is no reason to think that he is. I'm hanging on to hope for this family.

I agree. Good post. Thanks, Bayou.
 
If anyone has differing info, would you please let me know? Thanks.

Dogs used in the lake area searches

Total 5 dog teams, 5 handlers, 7 dogs. All but one dog is a cadaver dog. (Vreeland/Cayenne team searched 2 separate areas, south and mid-east.)

November
3 dog teams (3 dogs with 3 separate handlers)

Trained cadaver dogs from La Plata Search and Rescue alerted on unidentified scent sources in Vallecito Lake Saturday and again Sunday morning.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/-/s...in-bayfield-area-for-missing-dylan-redwine-13

The dogs are trained to distinguish between human remains and animal remains, according to handlers Rae Dreves and Katie Steelman, both of Durango. Their dogs are Selah and Darc, respectively.

The third dog on the search, Cayenne, is handled by Roy Vreeland of Bayfield.

http://durangoherald.com/article/20121125/NEWS01/121129707/-1/s

February
1 dog team (1 handler with 3 dogs)

Wendy Kessinger of Special Operations Canine Detection of New Mexico conducted the searches with two dogs, Jetta and Saber, that are trained to identify bones and human remains. Another bloodhound, Sadie, is trained to find live people and also was involved in the search.

http://www.pinerivertimes.com/news.asp?artid=1138

April
2 dog teams (2 dogs with 2 separate handlers)

Hess said Hope for Dylan Redwine contacted the cadaver dog team best suited for their needs and flew in a handler and her dog that is specifically trained and certified on cadavers, but especially recognizes the scent of human remains on water.

Local resident Roy Vreeland’s dog searched the same stretch of shore, and again the dog indicated the odor of human remains, Hess said.

http://www.pinerivertimes.com/news.asp?artid=1162
 
In my opinion - before we knew Dylan's family had started the new search last week, April 16th, some were seeing the recent arrest of Deputy Sutter on April 22nd and the LE coffer dam search as coincidental.

In my opinion, since we now know the search began before Sutter's arrest and LE was working in correlation with Dylan's family, that coincidence can be ruled out. LE was not out searching because of a tip related to Sutter's arrest. LE was assisting Dylan's family.

I tend to agree that Sutter's arrest has nothing to do with Dylan's case, and that there are no coincidences to speak of, but want to make sure I have the facts straight...

Was the deputy arrested again on separate charges on the 22nd? Or, are you referring to his arrest on April 9th? [According to the article linked below which was published on Thursday, April 11th, Sutter turned himself in on the Tuesday before which would have been the 9th.]

http://www.kjct8.com/news/Colo-depu...-case/-/163152/19713160/-/bdd404/-/index.html

Just as an aside - I do think it's very much worth noting that they don't think any of the pictures they found in this creep's computer were of local children according to the article linked above. If they had been local children then I would be a lot more interested in this Deputy in regard to possibly having something to do with Dylan's case.

*************
Just for the record - not directing this at you Lash, just don't want to make a separate post....

1. I do not want Dylan to be found in the lake.
2. I do not want Dylan to be found deceased.
3. I do not believe 100% without a doubt that MR did something with Dylan.
4. I do not want the dogs to be correct, but the fact is that the dogs' abilities are above 90% accurate, and I think to ignore that fact is rather naive.
5. I do want Dylan to be found alive, to be home with those who love him, to enjoy the rest of his life. However, at some point the likelihood of that happening is quite slim - and 5 months later with no sign of him, that likelihood is even less.
<modsnip>
As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:
 
Like I said, Bender didn't say the dogs were wrong, absolutely wrong... he said "the dogs had been wrong before". That doesn't indicate a solid statement, it was an attempt to explain it all away when the first dive search was called off.

As for what Pierce stated, I wasn't referring to him, and neither was the person I replied to. However, I'd like to know the opinion of the LE HRD handlers and not the dive captain, frankly. Do you not think that he would want to take pressure off his dive team as well considering they couldn't find what the dogs hit on?

I still don't know how something that Bender and Pierce said all the way back in November has any bearing on this anymore.

Obviously their statements were misleading for some reason (to quell the public's murmuring of the search ending so quickly, to give someone who may know something false confidence, etc...). Just like their statements that they were done with the lake search when obviously they weren't - they were involved with the search this last week.

If they were convinced the dogs were wrong all of these times, then why would they have bothered working with the search team at all? Why would they have brought back the LE dogs again?

Regardless, these dogs can't all be wrong, and not with so many hits, either.

All MOO! :cow:

PS - Thanks for bringing forward the quotes though. I do appreciate that. I'm just remembering all of the other things Bender said over the winter - that they wouldn't be back (and now we know they went back 15 times), that it must be an elk (when the dogs wouldn't be hitting on that, and if it were a 700 lb. elk why couldn't they find that, etc...). I don't believe the LPCSO is straight-out lying, just that they are not being entirely open about what all is going at all.

BBM. No I don't think so. I think at the time both Bender and Jennie Pierce believed the dogs were wrong.

They may still think so. I don't know what they think now. I'm eager for another press release, because I want very much to know what LE thinks of the situation at this point.

FTR, I don't know if the dogs are right or wrong, in terms of alerting because a body is in the lake. I think they're alerting on something or some things - I just don't know what, or where it is or they are. I don't know if a body is in the lake.

I'm eager for an explanation by LE or a handler - professionals directly involved in the case.

Just my opinion, and I'm fine with everyone thinking whatever they think. I like hearing other ideas.
 
I'd actually prefer no bodies being found in the lake at all. That means no one has to know the pain of a loved one being gone for good. I know it was discussed early on, but I don't remember what the end result was but we did talk about any other missing people in the area who disappeared, and who might be in the lake. I think at the time, we couldn't find anyone.

So I'd prefer that the dogs are hitting on ancient remains from an old burial ground. And that there are no fresh bodies in there. I don't think the dogs are wrong, I just don't know of anyone else it could be if it's not Dylan and I certainly don't want it to be Dylan. I would rather he is still alive somewhere. IMO, MOO.
BBM according to CBI's website, there are 6 unsolved missing adults in all of LaPlata County since 1972, 1 unsolved missing child - Dylan.
 
If anyone has differing info, would you please let me know? Thanks.

< snipped for space >

I don't have any other information to add to your list, however, knowing now that they've gone out there 15 times I think we're likely missing a lot of information in regard to dogs that may have been out there, when, with whom, etc... I'm sure they probably didn't bring dogs with all 15 times, but maybe they did. The truth is, we just don't know, so the list is going to be far from all-inclusive. The other searches weren't even reported to be going on at all...
 
How would finding nothing indicate the dogs are wrong? There is a lot of wind and other issues that can make pinpointing the origin of the chemicals and gases difficult. It just means they can't find the source as of yet.

The dogs (numerous at this point - not all the same teams, etc...) are not going to keep hitting on the same areas repeatedly and /all/ be wrong. They just brought in "fresh highly trained dogs" with the new search team - from Illinois as it stated. If a dog was brought in at this point and didn't alert at these areas, then I would question the reliability of that particular dog and/or handler - not the other way around.

Bender never actually said the dogs were "wrong". He offered up an explanation/excuse of them hitting on an elk (a 700 lb. animal, btw), but yet that was also when he stated they had no intention of searching the lake again - as was pointed out so many times here, even just last week before we knew the search was actually going on at that exact moment with law enforcement involved. Obviously, LE didn't dismiss these hits as was implied by Bender's statements. I truly do think his statements were meant to ease the general public - can you imagine if he would have said; "We know he's in there, but we'll have to wait for Spring?" They would have been under so much scrutiny from the public - no matter how well they explained the reasons for waiting until Spring. No-one wants to imagine a little boy at the bottom of a lake all winter, and no-one would really understand why they would leave him there, if they knew it was true. Even here there has been confusion of why the divers couldn't do more.

With a general accuracy of well over 90% with using HRD dogs, these hits are not "wrong". SOMEONE's body is in the water, and has been all winter. It's just a matter of finding the body, and figuring out who it is (it could be Dylan, and it might not be). That's stated in the article itself.

Not meaning to be snarky or anything, honestly. I wish to understand more as to why you say that this would mean the dogs are wrong? Just because they can't find the source yet, doesn't mean they are wrong.

I hate to say this, but by this time (5 mos. later) and now with knowing that there is a power plant water feed (which is usually warm water in my experience), it is possible that the body (whomever it belongs to) is no longer intact (due to decomp). That could explain why there are hits in two main places - by the dam (a lighter scent) and back near the Eastern Shoreline. And if the body is no longer intact, it will make finding the body that much harder at the bottom of the reservoir. Smaller portions could remain hidden in the brush, and logs, and not be clearly identifiable.

I'm glad they used the ROV at the grate, but I wish they could use it to scan the bottom of the whole portion by the dam, and along the Eastern portion where the dogs keep hitting... I suppose that might not be feasible, but I sure do wish it was.

As always, all of the above is MOO! :cow:

My prayers go out to Dylan's family members, and all those searching... What a tremendously emotional and exhausting situation this must be for all of them. It tears me up just reading about it all... I have this urge to go out there to the lake myself and search for him, but I wouldn't be able to do any good in that regard as I don't have a boat, no sonar, no ROV, and have never done Scuba diving - much less in very dangerous conditions... I just can't imagine what Elaine must be going through. She's so incredibly lucky to have such a good friend she can count on who is able to be right there, watching it all, and knowing exactly what's going on.

:yourock:
:greatpost:
 
< snipped for space >

I don't have any other information to add to your list, however, knowing now that they've gone out there 15 times I think we're likely missing a lot of information in regard to dogs that may have been out there, when, with whom, etc... I'm sure they probably didn't bring dogs with all 15 times, but maybe they did. The truth is, we just don't know, so the list is going to be far from all-inclusive. The other searches weren't even reported to be going on at all...

You have to start somewhere, and known info is a good place to start. I didn't say it was "all-inclusive". I thought it might be helpful since there was a lot of discussion last night about how many dog teams. When I started digging for specific info, it turned out there were more than the 3 we thought last night.

:cow:
 
You have to start somewhere, and known info is a good place to start. I didn't say it was "all-inclusive". I thought it might be helpful since there was a lot of discussion last night about how many dog teams. When I started digging for specific info, it turned out there were more than the 3 we thought last night.

:cow:

I didn't mean to discourage you in any way from making the list! I'm sorry! :blushing:

I do think it would be helpful like you said. I'm just frustrated that there were so many searches we know absolutely nothing about. :(

Again, I'm sorry that it sounded like I was being mean about your putting it together.

I have to leave the house in a little bit, so I'll be back on later.
 
BBM. Sutter was arrested on April 9, bonded out on April 10.

We don't know what happened to Dylan. LE hasn't ruled out anyone as having involvement (although they have stated that they don't consider Elaine or Mark as suspects).

I have by no means ruled out Jason Sutter, and won't until LE does. He's among the top ones on my list.

All my opinion. I respect yours.

You're correct about the initial arrest. However on April 9th, Sutter was under suspension pending results of the investigation. He was not officially charged until this week. Also, it was not known until he was charged this week that the child *advertiser censored* involved boys. It is my opinion that some believed there was a connection to Sutter's charges this week and LE's search this week. When in fact we now know LE was assisting Dylan's family. I was only commenting on the coincidental search being related to Sutter, not ruling Sutter out.

I am highly suspicious of MR. I have a problem with Dylan's cellphone activity abruptly stopping Sunday night. MR is on the very top of my list, but it doesnt mean I have or will rule out other possiblities.

4/10
http://durangoherald.com/article/20...ted-of-possessing-child-*advertiser censored*

4/22
http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...puty-charged-with-child-*advertiser censored*
 
You're correct about the initial arrest. However on April 9th, Sutter was under suspension pending results of the investigation. He was not officially charged until this week. Also, it was not known until he was charged this week that the child *advertiser censored* involved boys. It is my opinion that some believed there was a connection to Sutter's charges this week and LE's search this week. When in fact we now know LE was assisting Dylan's family. I was only commenting on the coincidental search being related to Sutter, not ruling Sutter out.

I am highly suspicious of MR. I have a problem with Dylan's cellphone activity abruptly stopping Sunday night. MR is on the very top of my list, but it doesnt mean I have or will rule out other possiblities.

4/10
http://durangoherald.com/article/20...ted-of-possessing-child-*advertiser censored*

4/22
http://www.durangoherald.com/articl...puty-charged-with-child-*advertiser censored*

Thanks for clarifying. I understand what you meant now.

I don't recall anyone saying they believed there was a connection, just people wondering if there might possibly be a connection. I know I was wondering and scared there might be - these guys sometimes are taken into custody or interrogated and they confess and admit where the body is. I didn't want that for Dylan, so I was scared and hoped there was no connection like that. I'm really glad it's turned out there wasn't.
 
Sorry to make so many comments in order... I'm here by myself at the moment!

I wanted to give some information in regard to the HRD dogs in regard to people's theory that there might be an ancient burial site under the lake. The likelihood of HRD dogs hitting on bones buried deep in the lake for over a century is virtually impossible. There are only a few dogs in the world who have been trained to detect Historical Human Remains. There is only one dog that has ever been tested, and confirmed as finding bone fragments that are over 175 years old - and that dog is in Australia. That dog was specifically trained since she was a puppy with known archaeological remains, and at old cemeteries. HHRD (Historical Human Remains Detection) is in its infancy as a science, and in regard to training, etc... It is a much more specific training than your "average" cadaver dogs.

The fact is, they don't even understand what the HHRD dogs are actually smelling as they are hitting on bone fragments and teeth, and not even some remnant of decomp fluids which have long since been erased by time, and other processes in the soil.

Also, please note that even among HRD dogs only some are trained to work in the water. It's a specialized training vs. using a dog on land. I have not been able to find an HHRD dog that has worked anywhere but on land, either.

So, for all of these dogs to be hitting on the lake, the likelihood of them hitting on some ancient burial ground covered by water for the last 70 years, and that would likely have been buried some 200+ years ago, is infinitesimal. It would truly be something so amazing that universities and archaeologists all across the world would be shocked about.

From reading the how's of what these HHRD dogs find these remains, they wouldn't be able to use these techniques in water at all. They have to actually have their noses at the ground to even smell whatever it is they are trying to detect (again, it's not decomp gases and fluids - it's something in the bones and teeth themselves).

For the HRD dogs to be hitting continually in this lake right now indicates there is fresh decomposition going on. There is truly no other explanation.

(Personally, I doubt the scent is coming from a tributary, but I do think the wind, and current may be preventing them from accurately pinpointing the source.)

Here are a couple links in regard to HHRD dogs. Again, these dogs are trained differently from "regular" HRD or cadaver dogs. They must be trained specifically to detect historical remains as the scent that HRD dogs usually hit on would no longer exist.

Migaloo the dog has a nose for archeology
http://www.news.com.au/national-new...e-for-archeology/story-fndo4ckr-1226463394595

K-9forensic.org FAQ page about the different classifications of search dogs:
http://www.k9forensic.org/faq.html


Some of the above is MOO! Most comes from the research and articles I've read about HHRD dogs - two of which are linked above.
:cow:




Redhead72 - Thank you for doing actual research on these topics for us. Your ability to locate information, process it, and explain it clearly is really impressive.

dlc
 
I don't know why variations in training and detection on the dog's part would have any bearing on when a person's body begins to deposit a cadaver scent? We aren't talking about the dogs at all, really. We're talking about there being a period of time in which a deceased person could be in a spot, but yet not transfer cadaver scent.

The point that was being discussed is how long does a cadaver have to be in a certain place for the scent to be transferred - how long from the moment of death until the process of decomp has evolved to such a point that the cadaverine starts being exuded from the pores. No one has stated that decomp doesn't begin immediately once a person dies - that's a known scientific fact. What isn't a known scientific fact is how long it takes for the decomp to actually start depositing on clothes and other articles in contact with the cadaver - as in the earliest average time period. I highly doubt those type of studies have ever even been done considering that you would have to have everything set up before a person dies, and then start the experiments immediately upon death... I don't think there is any governmental agency in the world that would allow that - or that logistically they could do that. And, even then, as I said - it depends on the cause of death, environmental factors, etc...

That doesn't have anything to do with how a dog is trained. The scent is the same... And, it's either there, or it's not. Some dogs may be more sensitive than others I suppose, but it's not about that.

I mentioned the studies I did because it showed that the body the dogs were training on was < 3 hours deceased. And, that I searched for information that may indicate that there have been studies done with items exposed to a cadaver at various stages from the moment of death on. I couldn't find any such studies that definitively state for instance, that all bodies will exude cadaverine within 5 minutes of death, or at 15 minutes, or at 30 minutes post-mortem (again, that's all just an example).

What I do know is that someone who is an expert - sarx - has confirmed that there is a period of time in which there is some "confusion", and during which a person could be deceased, but the dogs would not hit on the spot a deceased individual had lain or fallen if the body was moved before cadaverine could be deposited.


I want to bring up this point real quick. My friend has a daughter who is diabetic. She got a Diabetic Alert Dog for her daughter. The dog is suppose to react to the scent of chemical changes in the body. Then you have the amazing animals, the ones in nursing homes, that seem to know when someone is about to pass and goes and lays with them as they are dying. Dogs can scent changes in the human body. If these smells are being emitted around us at all times I do feel like they can be deposited on any absorbent surface we touch. Which is how the decomp scent is transferred? Now there was a study I read about recently in which they said the corpses were less than 3 hours old, and had been deposited on carpet squares for 2 minutes, and then 10 minutes. In the study, it said the dogs were tested on the exposed carpet for 2 minutes for 35 days and they hit for 65 days on the square that had been exposed for 10 minutes. I read snippets from an article but I just found the document for the whole study. I also read a few articles on decomp as a process and it does state decomp begins the minute you die and that the cells within the body begin to break down. If chemical changes within the body release odors into the air that dogs can pick up as soon as they occur(like the diabetic alert dog) then why can't the same be said of an HRD dog?


http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg 1998.pdf
 
I found this on a FB page. Good information on the search team that helped Dylan this week. Good information on searches in general.

An RCMP dive team and local search and rescue workers were unable to locate a young man that drowned due to the lack of visibility in forty feet of water. They used different methods including dragging the pond&#8217;s bottom, which at its deepest was 125 feet, but in the end were unsuccessful. A 72 day search. It took one day for the Ralston's to find him using a side scan sonar and an ROV.

http://gralston1.home.mindspring.com/V5N3OceanTechnology.pdf
 
Sorry to make so many comments in order... I'm here by myself at the moment!

I wanted to give some information in regard to the HRD dogs in regard to people's theory that there might be an ancient burial site under the lake. The likelihood of HRD dogs hitting on bones buried deep in the lake for over a century is virtually impossible. There are only a few dogs in the world who have been trained to detect Historical Human Remains. There is only one dog that has ever been tested, and confirmed as finding bone fragments that are over 175 years old - and that dog is in Australia. That dog was specifically trained since she was a puppy with known archaeological remains, and at old cemeteries. HHRD (Historical Human Remains Detection) is in its infancy as a science, and in regard to training, etc... It is a much more specific training than your "average" cadaver dogs.

The fact is, they don't even understand what the HHRD dogs are actually smelling as they are hitting on bone fragments and teeth, and not even some remnant of decomp fluids which have long since been erased by time, and other processes in the soil.

Also, please note that even among HRD dogs only some are trained to work in the water. It's a specialized training vs. using a dog on land. I have not been able to find an HHRD dog that has worked anywhere but on land, either.

So, for all of these dogs to be hitting on the lake, the likelihood of them hitting on some ancient burial ground covered by water for the last 70 years, and that would likely have been buried some 200+ years ago, is infinitesimal. It would truly be something so amazing that universities and archaeologists all across the world would be shocked about.

From reading the how's of what these HHRD dogs find these remains, they wouldn't be able to use these techniques in water at all. They have to actually have their noses at the ground to even smell whatever it is they are trying to detect (again, it's not decomp gases and fluids - it's something in the bones and teeth themselves).

For the HRD dogs to be hitting continually in this lake right now indicates there is fresh decomposition going on. There is truly no other explanation.

(Personally, I doubt the scent is coming from a tributary, but I do think the wind, and current may be preventing them from accurately pinpointing the source.)

Here are a couple links in regard to HHRD dogs. Again, these dogs are trained differently from "regular" HRD or cadaver dogs. They must be trained specifically to detect historical remains as the scent that HRD dogs usually hit on would no longer exist.

Migaloo the dog has a nose for archeology
http://www.news.com.au/national-new...e-for-archeology/story-fndo4ckr-1226463394595

K-9forensic.org FAQ page about the different classifications of search dogs:
http://www.k9forensic.org/faq.html


Some of the above is MOO! Most comes from the research and articles I've read about HHRD dogs - two of which are linked above.
:cow:

I have extensively researched this too. What I get is that a HHRD dog is a dog that is firstly an average HRD dog, but then is trained to focus solely on OLD remains. Thus the bone training. I have gathered that every HRD dog has the ability to hit on skeletal remains. I have not found anything that shows that and HRD dog is trained to NOT hit on skeletal remains. If the body goes through various stages of decomp with the last being skeletal then all the other stages before that scent could still remain depending on what is buried near or with the body that could absorb and hold in the scent particles.

Here are a few other articles.
But how good are dogs at detecting a skeleton from which all the flesh has fallen away? The anthropologist Keith Jacobi of the University of Alabama has investigated this at a police-dog training facility, where human remains ranging from fresh to skeletonised have been buried (the remains were bequeathed by donors).

In one study involving four dogs and their handlers, Jacobi says the dogs were able to detect remains at all stages of decomposition. Performance varied between dogs, but some could locate skeletonised remains buried in an area of 300ft by 150ft. "The few single human vertebrae I used in the study were well over 25 years old, and dry bone," Jacobi says. "This made the discovery of one of these vertebrae, which we buried in dense woods 2ft deep, by a cadaver dog pretty remarkable."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...uth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html

Yes, because their noses are over a hundred million times more sensitive than ours are, so it's amazing what they can detect. We've done lots of historic work such as locating human remains in old, old, old plantation cemeteries where only one or two headstones might be left but people say the cemetery used to be bigger. We bring our dogs out there and if the soil is not too acidic, there may be remains left in that soil even after several hundred years.

We located eighteen potential gravesites in the Mary Hemingway Cemetery in the Holden Beach area. It dates back to at least 1840, and it's now covered with a trailer park.

http://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/cadaver-dogs


On a side note, I would think that a massive grave area would have a stronger concentration of decomposition odors since there are usually many bodies within a confined space and of course they have been there longer. In one of those studies the bodies that were placed on the carpet squares, 2 minutes contact didn't last as long as the 10 minute contact, but how long would the scent remain if the body was placed there and never removed is a a good question?
 
I find it equally puzzling that some are convinced of MR's absolute guilt in harming Dylan with no concrete evidence including never being named a person of interest or a suspect. <modsnip>. I am with Emma and Ten-96 on this. In such a small community, this accused Deputy raises my hinky meter for reasons that have all be outlined up thread. I am waiting and watching for more information on his crime and any possible link to Dylan.



Just jumping off your post here. I've been thinking about this a lot. If you really think about it, we often have no "concrete evidence" in a number of cases, unless the crime was witnessed (and even then eyewitnesses can be mistaken), or there's irrefutable DNA evidence. We had no "concrete evidence" in the Casey Anthony case - meaning no one actually saw her kill her child; we had no "concrete evidence" in the O.J. Simpson case, if one buys the defense theory of contaminated DNA. Yet I would bet that many people here thought both of those parties to be guilty of the crimes they were accused of.

Sex offenders, sadly, are everywhere -- I doubt a crime could be committed in any area within the US where a sex offender could not be found within the immediate vicinity. I am not surprised to find that there were several within the area of MR's house. I am beyond disappointed that one happens to be a police officer, just as I was disappointed in some of Detective Fuhrman's commentary, but again I am not stunned by that news, and it doesn't affect my opinion of the who the most likely, most logical, prepertrator was.

In the Adversarial system, when called to serve on peer juries, we are asked to determine if the defendant is guilty beyond a _reasonable doubt_. Given the totality of the known facts of Dylan's case, including MR's continuing atypical behavior, I am moving closer to being beyond a reasonable doubt. I am not there yet (I was the last among my friends to be convinced that OJ was most likely guilty), but I am getting there.

IMO. MOO.
 
I have extensively researched this too. What I get is that a HHRD dog is a dog that is firstly an average HRD dog, but then is trained to focus solely on OLD remains. Thus the bone training. I have gathered that every HRD dog has the ability to hit on skeletal remains. I have not found anything that shows that and HRD dog is trained to NOT hit on skeletal remains. If the body goes through various stages of decomp with the last being skeletal then all the other stages before that scent could still remain depending on what is buried near or with the body that could absorb and hold in the scent particles.

Here are a few other articles.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...uth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html


http://www.dogster.com/lifestyle/cadaver-dogs


On a side note, I would think that a massive grave area would have a stronger concentration of decomposition odors since there are usually many bodies within a confined space and of course they have been there longer. In one of those studies the bodies that were placed on the carpet squares, 2 minutes contact didn't last as long as the 10 minute contact, but how long would the scent remain if the body was placed there and never removed is a a good question?

Thank you for the articles. I'm just wondering how these dogs that are specially trained to search for historical remains can detect anything that has been not only buried for hundreds of years, but covered by a reservoir for over 50 yrs as well.
 
I was just thinking and maybe you could answer this one, find out from your man a little. But I was wondering how delicately would the investigation into a LE officer would be handled? I imagine there are a lot of "claims" made against officers of wrong doing, you know vengeful complaints. My question is pretty much this, is the word of someone else enough to get a SW to investigate or would there have to be other evidence to back up an allegation in order to get a SW?



BBM


Just wanted to bump this question, as thanks to insomnia I tend to post in the middle of the night, but what man are we talking about? Is it a verified LE person? I've been catching up, and I noticed that a lot of statements about LE procedure followed this one, so I'm curious if we have an actual police officer here. If so, I wonder if it would be possible to him to be verified and participate directly? That would be excellent! IMO.

Thanks.
 
Now I have images of a serial killer living in Vallecito that goes off to abduct his victims, brings the home, then dumps them in the lake.

I thought it may be possible that with it's rich history that maybe there was an unknown Indian burial grounds at the location. With the hits all over the board, and no source yet found for the hits, I still think that is plausible. It's definitely better alternative than a serial killer, or a person who dismembered their victim.

BBM . . . sarx gave his/her opinion this last thread, I believe:

Dogs that work historical sites are trained specifically for that. It is a different scent composition than fresh remains, which is why there are dogs specific to historical remains detection.
While it is possible that someone else is down under that water, it's not likely that these particular dogs being used were trained for historical/archaeology detection. There is a very small group of dogs/handlers that do this kind of work, and I am pretty certain none of them were out there.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9141224&postcount=71"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - CO- Dylan Redwine, 13, Vallecito, 19 November 2012 - #48[/ame]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
90
Guests online
2,317
Total visitors
2,407

Forum statistics

Threads
594,302
Messages
18,002,342
Members
229,362
Latest member
undefined.value
Back
Top