Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - # 5

[Panda]

Well the easiest way would be.

Where the back door is = backyard
Front Door = front yard
Side Door = side of house

Really doesn't make a difference if the house is on an angle IMO

This is a very good point. For the sake of accuracy, it's important to know exactly where he was last seen and where he disappeared from. Can anyone recall exactly what and where the sniffer dogs located William's scent? I understand they didn't find anything in the bush, but if he had been abducted, I would have expected them to pick up a scent from the driveway, for example.

 

[Panda]

This is a very good point. For the sake of accuracy, it's important to know exactly where he was last seen and where he disappeared from. Can anyone recall exactly what and where the sniffer dogs located William's scent? I understand they didn't find anything in the bush, but if he had been abducted, I would have expected them to pick up a scent from the driveway, for example.

I've managed to find an article that answers my own question.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...olice-say-chances-of-survival-are-diminishing

"Sniffer dogs have failed to pick up any scent of the three-year-old William Tyrell on the NSW mid-north coast, fuelling fears he may not have wandered away from home."

"Neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs had been able to pick up any sign of the boy, Fehon said."

 

[Panda]

Following on from my previous post, I found another interesting article regarding sniffer dogs:

http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/detectiondogs.shtml

What amazing animals.

"Obviously the air is full of a vast variety of different odours, many of which will be powerfully clear to the dog. Fortunately they are able to distinguish between different odours, even if one smell overpowers another, and trace a specific scent to its source. "

"Whether the cadaver is on the surface, buried underground or under water, a dog’s nose is powerful enough to pick up the scent and trace it back to its source. Cadaver dogs can not only locate actual human remains, but also the location in which a corpse or body parts may have previously been stored by tracking down residual scents. "

 

[butterstick]

Unrelated case

When Lindsey Baum vanished police had a suspect. He was at the scene helping search shortly after the event. They raided his house and confiscated items. His movements on the day she went missing were different to what he told police. No charges ever laid after 5 years, so the man is rightly presumed innocent.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/...-disappearance-still-a-mystery-264779471.html
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?85783-WA-Lindsey-Baum-10-McCleary-26-June-2009-1

 

[Blessed]

<modsnip>

Someone correct me if I am wrong (and I cannot find the related MSM article) I thought (read) that it was reported, that the dogs could not pick up a scent from the end of the yard.. meaning WT was in the yard.

 

[Amee]

Someone correct me if I am wrong (and I cannot find the related MSM article) I thought (read) that it was reported, that the dogs could not pick up a scent from the end of the yard.. meaning WT was in the yard.

I remember reading that as well I think it was back in thread 1 or 2 when we were talking about the dogs.
Acutally I think it was also on one of the rescue pages way back will try and find it.

Its interesting to read what the locals and the searchers have to say :moo:

 

[deugirtni]

I 'thought' I had read that no scent of WT was picked up after the driveway, however after searching for that again, it turns out that it was just said by a poster on the Missing WT FB page, and not said by LE or MSM. I don't recall ever coming across an article saying about the end of the yard, nor have I read anything to say that the dogs were used inside the home. I know that neighbours have stated their homes were searched 3 times, every nook and cranny, attic and basement. I am wondering if the sniffer dogs were utilized inside of the grandmother's home.

When I went searching for the above, I could only find it ever said that the dogs found 'no trace' of WT's scent.

Someone correct me if I am wrong (and I cannot find the related MSM article) I thought (read) that it was reported, that the dogs could not pick up a scent from the end of the yard.. meaning WT was in the yard.

 

[Panda]

BBM: There is not a doubt in my mind that police know exactly who was where when William disappeared, and where William was last seen (except by a possible abductor). Police sometimes do not give a lot of detail because they do not want to imprint suggestions into our minds. From what I have read, they generally prefer for people to come forward with fresh information that has not been influenced by police suppositions or other witness accounts.

I think the only thing that they would not know for sure is exactly how long it had been since William ran out of sight. 5 minutes could be 3 minutes or 8 minutes or 10 minutes or maybe even 15 minutes. And they probably do not know exactly where William was when he disappeared, of course. Though it is possible that they have little footprints in the dirt that give them an indication - except they could have been smeared or destroyed by all the searchers running around.

I don't quite know where you're going with this. I'm not discussing "who was where when William disappeared", quoted from your previous post above. By all accounts, it appears the police have no evidence as to where William was last seen, other than witness accounts, which in my opinion, can be tenuous. As I previously said "it's important to know exactly where he was last seen and where he disappeared from", bolded by myself quoting from my previous post, other than witness accounts, as the sniffer dogs did not pick up any scent. As per my previous post, "Sniffer dogs have failed to pick up any scent of the three-year-old William Tyrell on the NSW mid-north coast" (bolded by me) and "Neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs had been able to pick up any sign of the boy, Fehon said." (also bolded by me). Now it may be a case that the police meant to say something along the lines of " ... neither police sniffer dogs nor cadaver dogs had been able to pick up any sign of the boy, other than where he was reportedly last seen by witnesses", however, this is not what they said, and I am only concerned with facts as we know them.

It's not a question of police not giving a lot of detail, it's a question of the information they have given. I personally can see no logical explanation as to why the police would intentionally want to mislead the public, if that is what you are suggesting. In fact, in my opinion, their cause would have been better furthered by not releasing any information about the sniffer dogs failing to pick up William's scent if as you said in your previous post "they do not want to imprint suggestions into our minds." I don't quite understand your logic in that sentence, or where you are trying to go with it.

Did you read the link about the sniffer dogs? It is improbable the dogs would not have picked up any scent from William whatsoever. In my opinion, it's also improbable that they would not have used the sniffer dogs around the confines of the actual property, as there have been cases where missing children have been found in obscure places (such as the boot of a car, for example), and as William was clearly missing, I would have thought they would have been extremely thorough. Indeed, according to the various news reports, they were extremely thorough. Which then leads back to the question, according to the current evidence, as we know it, why was there no scent of William found at all?

 

[Panda]

Someone correct me if I am wrong (and I cannot find the related MSM article) I thought (read) that it was reported, that the dogs could not pick up a scent from the end of the yard.. meaning WT was in the yard.

It would be very helpful if that could be found. Hopefully someone will come across it and post a link.

 

[Amee]

Someone correct me if I am wrong (and I cannot find the related MSM article) I thought (read) that it was reported, that the dogs could not pick up a scent from the end of the yard.. meaning WT was in the yard.

Sniffer dogs found no trace of the boy beyond the yard.

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/tod...-where-is-william-tyrell-20141016-1171am.html

found it back in early threads where we discussed the dogs inside and out.

 

[Panda]

I 'thought' I had read that no scent of WT was picked up after the driveway, however after searching for that again, it turns out that it was just said by a poster on the Missing WT FB page, and not said by LE or MSM. I don't recall ever coming across an article saying about the end of the yard, nor have I read anything to say that the dogs were used inside the home. I know that neighbours have stated their homes were searched 3 times, every nook and cranny, attic and basement. I am wondering if the sniffer dogs were utilized inside of the grandmother's home.

When I went searching for the above, I could only find it ever said that the dogs found 'no trace' of WT's scent.

As mentioned in one of my recent posts, I would have thought&#8203; (as in, it's my opinion) they would have used the sniffer dogs in the house and around the house, as children of that age can end up in the most obscure places. However, that is only conjecture, as I don't know for a fact that is what they did.

 

[SouthAussie]

It's not a question of police not giving a lot of detail, it's a question of the information they have given. I personally can see no logical explanation as to why the police would intentionally want to mislead the public, if that is what you are suggesting.

Sorry Panda, my post was not a hostile one. I simply wanted to bounce off your post to say that ...

Police sometimes do not give a lot of detail because they do not want to imprint suggestions into our minds. From what I have read, they generally prefer for people to come forward with fresh information that has not been influenced by police suppositions or other witness accounts.

I then deleted my post because I thought it would be better bouncing off the BBM part of the following post. But you had already responded before I got a chance to do that.

I think we can put this down to journalists reporting via Chinese-whispers, rather than some deliberate obfuscation.

There really hasn't been much in the way of a "true source" for these details. They can't talk to the family. They get quite broad police statements.

If anyone did actually start talking in a way that was detailed and accurate, then I think that's the trigger for the police to take an interest. If you get what I mean.

Would not surprise me if the police were watching discussions such as this one, even.

And no, I didn't read your link about the sniffer dogs because I have read the same info and discussions further back in the threads. So I was not even talking about those at all. All of the current discussions are re-hashes of previous conversations, so I try not to get into them except when I have a new thought.

 

[Amee]

I think we can put this down to journalists reporting via Chinese-whispers, rather than some deliberate obfuscation.

There really hasn't been much in the way of a "true source" for these details. They can't talk to the family. They get quite broad police statements.

If anyone did actually start talking in a way that was detailed and accurate, then I think that's the trigger for the police to take an interest. If you get what I mean.

Would not surprise me if the police were watching discussions such as this one, even.

Yes. I believe they do read a lot of forums as do journalists. Some WS members even got a mention in David's book.

https://twitter.com/themurrayd

 

[Panda]

Sorry Panda, my post was not a hostile one. I simply wanted to bounce off your post to say that ...

Police sometimes do not give a lot of detail because they do not want to imprint suggestions into our minds. From what I have read, they generally prefer for people to come forward with fresh information that has not been influenced by police suppositions or other witness accounts.

I then deleted my post because I thought it would be better bouncing off the BBM part of the following post. But you had already responded before I got a chance to do that.




And no, I didn't read your link about the sniffer dogs because I have read the same info and discussions further back in the threads. So I was not even talking about those at all. All of the current discussions are re-hashes of previous conversations, so I try not to get into them except when I have a new thought.

That's okay. I didn't take it as a hostile post, I was confused as to where you were leading. I think it's important to look at all the relevant facts, as we know them and try to work out what's what from there.

The reason I'm interested, was because initially (wrongly, as it turns out) I thought if the scene was contaminated, the sniffer dogs would not be able to track William. Having researched various articles on it though, I'm trying to establish if William's scent was picked up from the driveway, or for example, on the edge of the road. This would have lead me to reasonably opine that he had been abducted either from someone who pulled into the driveway, or from a car which may have pulled up and started talking to William, as he ran around towards the front of the house, which would then have got me thinking whether the person who may have abducted William, knew him, or not. Having researched that however, the only articles I could find were articles indicating that no scent was picked up at all. So I'm now having to rethink (yet again).

 

[jigzy]

Well the easiest way would be.

Where the back door is = backyard
Front Door = front yard
Side Door = side of house

Really doesn't make a difference if the house is on an angle IMO

SD, I don't think it's as clear cut as that. I tend to agree with Angeline; the angle of the house coupled with the slope/incline makes it tricky to say which is the 'front', 'side' and 'back' of the property. One entrance is up some steps, another is in the car port and another is on the decked area where we see the grandmother sitting. There is the additional confusion of the long balcony that extends the length of the upper floor and can be seen through the trees.
Which would one call the 'side' of the property (where William ran)? I would probably say that the 'front' of the house is that with the long balcony facing downhill, although the main entrance would be the one accessed by the steps facing the driveway (that might easily also be called the 'front' of the house). The 'side' that he ran down being the one furthest away from the driveway, I would call the L shaped area of the property with the corner decking the 'back'. Jmo. It's tricky - I can see where confusion lies. It reminds me of the reporting of apartment 5A (McCann case) where the actual 'front' of the apartment looked more like it should be called the 'back', the side facing the pool looking more like it should be called the 'front'. (So much confusion over front doors and back doors in that case.)

IMO.

 

[Amee]

By now, a couple of dozen *locals were looking for William. Within a few hours, police with sniffer dogs arrived from Port Macquarie. The bush surrounding the house had been &#8220;contaminated&#8221; but the handlers, with their dogs, swept further out into the bush. They could pick up no scent. &#8220;If a person was out there, the dogs would have been aware of it,&#8221; Fehon explains.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...y-william-tyrell/story-e6frg6nf-1227064608526

 

[bearbear]

i remember reading early on that no scent had been found, which seemed really odd, then later it was reported no scent beyond the yard/driveway, so does anyone know whether police reported no scent (at all) and then they changed it to mean beyond yard etc,
or did msm just assume they meant that and ran with it meaning beyond yard etc.
because unless the police actually publicly changed the statement of no scent, then this changes so many scenarios

 

[marlywings]

I think we can put this down to journalists reporting via Chinese-whispers, rather than some deliberate obfuscation.

There really hasn't been much in the way of a "true source" for these details. They can't talk to the family. They get quite broad police statements.

If anyone did actually start talking in a way that was detailed and accurate, then I think that's the trigger for the police to take an interest. If you get what I mean.

Would not surprise me if the police were watching discussions such as this one, even.

Re the line I've bolded....

Absolutely correct. In most cases that is how police work, they keep their cards very close to their chest and are under no obligation whatsoever to release details of the case just to satisfy the curiosity of members of the public. They will only release certain details if it's of help to their investigations.

Police quite often read our forum. In some of our US cases we have members who are police officers.

 

[Panda]

Sniffer dogs found no trace of the boy beyond the yard.

http://www.essentialbaby.com.au/tod...-where-is-william-tyrell-20141016-1171am.html

found it back in early threads where we discussed the dogs inside and out.

Well spotted. Quote from the above article, my bolding: "Sniffer dogs found no trace of the boy beyond the yard." I am presuming "Essential Baby" is a media source that would be classified as reasonable. Well, that solves that problem. Unfortunately, we now can only speculate as to whether he was allegedly taken from the driveway, or from the actual road.

 

[bearbear]

Well spotted. Quote from the above article, my bolding: "Sniffer dogs found no trace of the boy beyond the yard." I am presuming "Essential Baby" is a media source that would be classified as reasonable. Well, that solves that problem. Unfortunately, we now can only speculate as to whether he was allegedly taken from the driveway, or from the actual road.

but is that msm wording or did police actually give a statement quoting beyond the yard or did they only ever say no trace?
just trying to get the truth of what police have said and msm have said