Discussion in 'Lisa Irwin' started by matou, Oct 24, 2011.
Which part did you get from your friend? I can't tell much from this post, it's jumbled.
norest-- thank you for taking the time to show how our verified expert sarx's opinion is in agreement with the info you obtained from your friend. works for me! movin' on...
Red. Maybe you can help me figure out which part is from Norest's friend. Is it only the bolded part? If it is it's not much. Scent transfer and nothing from a living body? That's not a whole lot. IMO.
The defence lawyer couldnt get away with that unless he produced the old blood stain
Didnt LE take out the carpet? if there was no blood stain then.....
Since Mr Grime was the FBI dog handler and his MO is using a blood detection dog in the absence of any human remains after his cadaver dog hits, to serve as forensics, then the absence of any report saying saying his blood dog alertedmeans there was no blood
Me too. I think that the FBI knows what it is doing, and that they know whether or not a body was recently in that home.
The main point many people are missing is that cadaver dogs do not alert to living people and their remains id they dis they would not be called cadaver dogs and they would be useless In any investigation if they alerted to a hundred different smells, <Mod Snip>
It wasn't from my friend. I knew that you wouldn't accept anything I got from anywhere but a LINK that you could read. So, everything I copied and pasted is from SARX here on WS. if you will read the link, you will see that.
Thank YOU for being able to understand it. It was late! lol
Saying that a defense lawyer couldn't get away with that unless he "produced the old blood stain" would be like asking for the prosecutor to provide forensic evidence to back up the "FBI dog" hit. Maybe there the same thing.
LE removed a roll of carpet from the garage but not from the bedroom that the "FBI" dog hit. What if the old blood stain was on the wood floor underneath any rug or carpet? Would the "FBI" dog alert on that? I trust the dog and say that it would.
How do we know that Mr Grime was the handler of the particular dog that made the "hit" mentioned in the search warrant affidavit? Until we have evidence that he was the handler and one of his dogs is the "FBI" dog that made the hit, his record is almost meaningless.
Ranch, my Answers are within the quote, sorry, Im having trouble with my ipad
Steve Jobs must be rolling over in his grave. :floorlaugh:
Here's a quote from Clutchbag's reply.
I'm saying that an "old blood stain" could be forensic evidence that explains the "FBI dog" hit. I assume that when you say "that it might not" is meaning that the defense would not have any forensic evidence of an "old blood stain" and that's why they're not the same? How do you know that's the case?
To make it clear to everyone, I'm just putting out a plausible explanation for the "FBI dog" hit that precludes a dead Lisa Irwin being the cause of that hit. I don't have any knowledge of LE finding an old blood stain or any other forensic evidence that corroborates the "FBI dog" hit. JMO.
Here's another quote from Clutchbag.
I've been looking for information on the Martin Grime dog named "Lucy" that you referred to in your reply. If you could be so kind to provide some links or other information on this dogs use in the Irwin case and her training, it would be most appreciated.
Did I say Lucy was Grimes dog? No I didnt. But a cadaver dog named Lucy was used in this case. i came across her in two videos I watched. if its really important to you I will try find them.
Thats the whole point, defence cant say the dog alerted to an old blood stain as fact unless they provide evidence. A statement that cadaver dogs react to remnant death scent is just that, they cant provide evidence. So the ball is in the defences court here.
Sorry. The way you worded your post made me think that "Lucy" was owned by Grime. I was talking about Martin Grime and his dogs involvement in this case. If "Lucy" is not his dog then why even bring it up?
If you can find something that says this dog "Lucy" was used in the Lisa Irwin case and any information on what she's trained to do it would be appreciated. If it's just your opinion from watching a video of a dog then don't bother.
My point is we don't know what forensic evidence LE collected from the Irwin home. They may have found evidence of an old blood stain that could explain the "FBI dog" hit. Since the hasn't been an arrest yet, there is no discovery for anyone's defense to see. JMO.
The conversation was about whether we knew it was Martin Grime and his dog that were used and made the hit (your question) and I said, of course we dont know it was him and his dog as there were other cadaver dogs used, thats why I brought up Lacey (not Lucy, my mistake). of course it isnt just my opinion on what dogs were used, I got the info from the media. here is mention of lacey.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upv0MCZhQLk&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]Cadaver Dogs Search Lake For Baby Lisa - YouTube[/ame]
Both those dogs in the video were also involved in the house search, but I dont havent got the other video to hand.
here is one that shows them
Quite. if they collected blood evidence then defense could use this to explain away the dog alert as possibly NOT being from a dead body. But blood evidence does not definitely mean there wasnt a dead body iyswim. End of the day a cadaver dog is intelligence to be considered, never proof on its own of a death of the actual missing person.
I was rereading some of this, it seems that one of the keys to a viable theory to what happened lies in (from what we know) that the dog hit was NOT in the crib, or bathroom, etc., but was on "something" lying on the floor in the parents bedroom. So doesnt that mean BL was in the bedroom at some point? DB never mentioned that.
Well, she DID tell Judge Jeanine that she liked to have her kids sleep in her bed when they were little (her explanation of why her son was in her bed when her boyfriend got home from work) .... why a 6 year old child and not a sick infant? I think that could be very telling.