I no longer believe that...

[Melon]

Again: If LE found nothing, i.e., fibers. hair, fingerprints, et al, on the window/door or inside the house, other then those belonging to the boys, BL, DB, JI, PN, and the neighbors, then one must assume it was an inside job. Let's be real here folks!!!!

Well, if you apply the reasoning that some use around here, there is no link to LE stating they found fibers so you must conclude they haven't. There is no proof LE found fibers so they don't exist. Funny how that reasoning seems to be selectively applied. :waitasec::moo:

To me, I don't think revealing they had some sort of evidence pointing to SODDI would harm the case at this point in time. If truly kidnapped, it's highly doubtful BL is still alive so there is no risk in spooking her abductor. They have all the evidence they are ever going to have because they long ago released the house back to the parents. I truly think if LE had some sort of evidence of an intruder we would have heard it by now. :moo::moo:

 

[cityslick]

Well, if you apply the reasoning that some use around here, there is no link to LE stating they found fibers so you must conclude they haven't. There is no proof LE found fibers so they don't exist. Funny how that reasoning seems to be selectively applied. :waitasec::moo:

To me, I don't think revealing they had some sort of evidence pointing to SODDI would harm the case at this point in time. If truly kidnapped, it's highly doubtful BL is still alive so there is no risk in spooking her abductor. They have all the evidence they are ever going to have because they long ago released the house back to the parents. I truly think if LE had some sort of evidence of an intruder we would have heard it by now. :moo::moo:

BBM

What makes you say this? I can point to numerous examples of cases where nothing was revealed (although plenty of speculation) and later turns out it was a true abduction from a stranger, some of which didn't have on the radar at all. Why do you think LE would be so forthcoming with details of their investigation if it pointed to others than DB? I followed the Mickey Shunick case and up until they made an arrest, you didn't hear boo about anybody or anything, to the point that LE was getting roundly criticized for not released information about anything.

 

[cityslick]

Again: If LE found nothing, i.e., fibers. hair, fingerprints, et al, on the window/door or inside the house, other then those belonging to the boys, BL, DB, JI, PN, and the neighbors, then one must assume it was an inside job. Let's be real here folks!!!!

How do you know what LE found and didn't find? Do you know there are cases where there are abductions (or even any crime committed in a home) and no dna/fibers/etc of the intruder is found in the house?

 

[KsStormy]

Well, if you apply the reasoning that some use around here, there is no link to LE stating they found fibers so you must conclude they haven't. There is no proof LE found fibers so they don't exist. Funny how that reasoning seems to be selectively applied. :waitasec::moo:

To me, I don't think revealing they had some sort of evidence pointing to SODDI would harm the case at this point in time. If truly kidnapped, it's highly doubtful BL is still alive so there is no risk in spooking her abductor. They have all the evidence they are ever going to have because they long ago released the house back to the parents. I truly think if LE had some sort of evidence of an intruder we would have heard it by now. :moo::moo:

LE has said they need to talk to Deborah Bradley, that's it. Nothing about an intruder. That says a lot to me.

 

[Melon]

BBM

What makes you say this? I can point to numerous examples of cases where nothing was revealed (although plenty of speculation) and later turns out it was a true abduction from a stranger, some of which didn't have on the radar at all. Why do you think LE would be so forthcoming with details of their investigation if it pointed to others than DB? I followed the Mickey Shunick case and up until they made an arrest, you didn't hear boo about anybody or anything, to the point that LE was getting roundly criticized for not released information about anything.

To answer your first and second questions, it's my opinion based on looking at the case as a whole and info picked up here and there outside of this board. :moo:
.
BBM do any of those numerous examples have a confirmed cadaver dog hit in the home of the missing? If they do, they are a relevant comparison, if not, I find them irrelevant. YMMV.:moo:

 

[cityslick]

To answer your first and second questions, it's my opinion based on looking at the case as a whole and info picked up here and there outside of this board. :moo:
.
BBM do any of those numerous examples have a confirmed cadaver dog hit in the home of the missing? If they do, they are a relevant comparison, if not, I find them irrelevant. YMMV.:moo:

The cadaver dog hit doesn't prove:

It's related to BL
It's related to BL but was caused (death) by one of her parents.

So in the absence of everything else, what exactly does the cadaver dog hit prove? Dog experts will even tell you in the absence of everything else, it doesn't even prove someone died in the house.

 

[cityslick]

LE has said they need to talk to Deborah Bradley, that's it. Nothing about an intruder. That says a lot to me.

LE doesn't mention JI either but that doesn't stop some folks from trying to theorize him committing a crime.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't believe there are any houses in which CSI finds no fibers if they're looking for them.

JMO, in many cases it may be impossible to say whether a fiber belonged to someone who was in the house legitimately or if it was a trace transfer or if an abductor left it behind. You'd need to match the fiber to an item of clothing belonging to the suspect and in the absence of such a match whatever fibers they may or may not have found mean very little.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

How do you know what LE found and didn't find? Do you know there are cases where there are abductions (or even any crime committed in a home) and no dna/fibers/etc of the intruder is found in the house?

Are you saying there are cases where a child was killed in their home by an intruder? The only one I can think of is Stephanie Crowe...

 

[Melon]

The cadaver dog hit doesn't prove:

It's related to BL
It's related to BL but was caused (death) by one of her parents.

So in the absence of everything else, what exactly does the cadaver dog hit prove? Dog experts will even tell you in the absence of everything else, it doesn't even prove someone died in the house.

I do not agree with you in the least. SAR dogs can discriminate scents to a single person. The FBI will use highly trained dogs. It is not a stretch that they discriminated to BL's scent and her scent only.:moo:

 

[norest4thewicked]

LE has said they need to talk to Deborah Bradley, that's it. Nothing about an intruder. That says a lot to me.

Absolutely! IF LE thought there was an outside entity, they would not still need to speak to DB and be so adamant about it. It's very easy for me to put two and two together.

 

[RANCH]

All I want to say to those who think that an unverified HRD dog hit and the fact that LE wish's to speak to Deborah Bradely means that she's guilty of killing Lisa is in my opinion setting the bar extremely low.

<modsnip>

 

[Whisperer]

The cadaver dog hit doesn't prove:

It's related to BL
It's related to BL but was caused (death) by one of her parents.

So in the absence of everything else, what exactly does the cadaver dog hit prove? Dog experts will even tell you in the absence of everything else, it doesn't even prove someone died in the house.

The dog/s detected the scent of a deceased human being. It was most likely recent as even the smell of death will dissipate in time.

 

[Clutchbag]

No thescent of death
remains for months andyears

Especially in porous surfaces ucan Never get rid of it

 

[cityslick]

The dog/s detected the scent of a deceased human being. It was most likely recent as even the smell of death will dissipate in time.

That's not accurate. They hit on decaying matter.

 

[cityslick]

I do not agree with you in the least. SAR dogs can discriminate scents to a single person. The FBI will use highly trained dogs. It is not a stretch that they discriminated to BL's scent and her scent only.:moo:

Actually it depends on the type of training the particular SAR dog had who made the hit.

 

[Melon]

Actually it depends on the type of training the particular SAR dog had who made the hit.

I am really not sure why <modsnip> work so hard to discredit, discount, and dismiss the dog work in this case. We have a fact of a dog hit in the home. Why is this fact so debatable in its validity?

Here is a video of MOSAR dogs. The one with the chair is using scent discrimination. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_XmI_JEURk"]The Missouri Search and Rescue K-9 Unit - YouTube[/ame] That particular dog was also present at the search warrant execution. 29 seconds into this video you see this same dog at BL's home. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/baby-lisa-cadaver-dog-hit-reliable-14801156 There are other videos showing this dog at the BL home along with other MOSAR dogs.

It is a fact at least one of the dogs present there was scent discrimination trained. <modsnip>

 

[Clutchbag]

The cadaver dog hit doesn't prove:

It's related to BL
It's related to BL but was caused (death) by one of her parents.

So in the absence of everything else, what exactly does the cadaver dog hit prove? Dog experts will even tell you in the absence of everything else, it doesn't even prove someone died in the house.

it may not *prove* anything but cadaver dog alerts are, and said to be by both usa and uk LE as *justifiable suspicion* , intelligence to aid LE in their job

 

[Clutchbag]

That's not accurate. They hit on decaying matter.

yes, decaying bodies

 

[norest4thewicked]

yes, decaying bodies

Correct. Cadaver dogs will ONLY hit on decaying bodies. They will not hit on (for example) decaying plants, dirty diapers or spoiled food.