Found Deceased OH - Harley Dilly, 14, walking to Port Clinton High School, 20 Dec 2019 #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to check all of them within sight of his home.
Why within the sight of his home? Why would anyone think a kidnapper would take a 14 yr od within the sight of his home?

Or that a 14 yr old would hide across the street? I bet if he looked at where most 14 yr olds were recovered, Dead or Alive, very few would be right across the street. JMO
 
Isn’t it standard procedure to place items in an evidence bag, with as little handling as possible, and take them to a lab where the jacket can be laid out on a table and examined for evidence?

I personally believe this was just a tragic accident, but they had no way to be certain of that at that point. I’ve heard more than one person in law enforcement state that every death scene should be handled as a homicide scene until the evidence indicates otherwise.
But when they 1st found that coat it wasn't known to be a death scene.

Their hearts were in their throats I'm sure, when the realised he could be in that chimney. They urgently needed to get to him. They weren't worried about anything but that, most certainly.

Every death scene should be treated as a crime scene, but it wasn't a 'death' scene when they 1st saw the glasses and coat. It was still a mystery and an urgent one.
 
"He somehow got inside safely then decided to go up the chimney for some reason. Probably removed his coat so it would not be such a tight squeeze. Sounds like he was exploring options of how to get in and out of the house"


That ^^^ doesn't seem likely to me. If he was inside safely, I can't imagine him climbing up to the roof and then jumping into the chimney. Why do that? If he was already safely inside the house he wouldn't need an 'option' like a chimney. He could just leave a window unlocked.

Or he could do whatever he did in the 1st place to get inside. [which I don't think ever happened.]

Besides, if he had been inside safely, he would have seen there was no fireplace in the house.
JMO IMO
LE finding his stuff on the 2nd floor made it "seem" as though he had actually made it into the house and placed them there.

After having discussions on here about it, an article was posted explaining why his glasses and coat were on the second floor, thus leading LE to check the chimney - even though there were no fireplaces in the home.
 
Last edited:
I'm still really struggling with the timeline of the morning he went missing, having been allegedly seen on cctv with a timestamp of 6:08 am. The bell time for first class at the high school is 7:30 am. Allowing for the idea he may have been enrolled in the school breakfast program, I found a pdf brochure on the high school web site assigning it to 7-7:30 time slot for the high school. Google maps shows the school approx .6 mi away, approx a 12 minute walk. I'm sure that could have any number of variables, but close enough to presume he had anywhere from 30+ mins to a whole extra hour on his hands.

A freezing cold morning in the teens temps, out in the pitch dark, that early in the morning just looking for adventure as a head start to the day? I'm just not picturing it.

He lived across from that house 365 days of the year. And while it wasn't always vacant with renovators coming and going, it sounds like it was vacant a lot of the time. I'd bet there was a good chance he'd climbed that roof before. But why THAT morning of all mornings of his teen years was he so drawn to the actual chimney of that house? To actively decide to go in it? I don't have any sensible theories.
All I can figure is he didn't want to go to school that day. Not sure why...:(....

But he was probably cold and looking for a warm place to hang out. It is hard to understand his reasoning, but he was only 14. I made some pretty rash and impulsive decisions then too.


I used to work in the principals office of a middle school. You cannot believe the crazy stories I heard, from nervous students, trying to explain why they did whatever numbskull thing they did to get them into our waiting room...
 
They say there is no more of a painful surgery- I’m so sorry you went through that, I hope you are 100% well now.
Thank you. I had residual shooting pains that come and go. I also have numbness in parts of it because of nerves that were cut. It’s just weird. It’s taken forever to recover.
 
I wonder for those of you who are satisfied with the conclusion to this case what you hope to find here?
Personally I am not. This doesn't mean I think his family are directlyinvolved it simply means I think that the findings are unsatisfactory. I am at a disadvantage due to my location there are somethings I simply cannot fact check for myself. I had thought asking questions and was in essence how we discover the truth.

Well, that's also how we wind up with endless conspiracy theories and unresolved cases; isn't it?

I'm not saying this is one of these situations, but that's why I keep checking in. Because I see the thread is very active, and I think/figure that some additional solid-fact information has to have been forthcoming as a cause of the hot take.

That's just my reaction, though, and may not be everyone's.
 
One thing I would like to know is did the sniffer dogs lead them to that house, when they were searching with them??????? IIRC didn't the chief say they went over there more than once. Just how many times did they go over there???? How many times did he block searches,say we got this???? Give us a couple more days?????

Well, the dogs weren't sniffing around on the roof.

Plus, brick strikes me as pretty scent-impermeable.

Other than that, I know just enough about science to be dangerous to forensics; but not enough to solidly explain anything to anyone. I feel the site has got some tracker dog experts somewhere, though, who might be able to answer.
 
Well, that's also how we wind up with endless conspiracy theories and unresolved cases; isn't it?

I'm not saying this is one of these situations, but that's why I keep checking in. Because I see the thread is very active, and I think/figure that some additional solid-fact information has to have been forthcoming as a cause of the hot take.

That's just my reaction, though, and may not be everyone's.
I just like to argue.
 
All I can figure is he didn't want to go to school that day. Not sure why...:(....

But he was probably cold and looking for a warm place to hang out. It is hard to understand his reasoning, but he was only 14. I made some pretty rash and impulsive decisions then too.


I used to work in the principals office of a middle school. You cannot believe the crazy stories I heard, from nervous students, trying to explain why they did whatever numbskull thing they did to get them into our waiting room...

I agree, he was skipping school, he wasn't even walking to school.

"According to Hickman, police found no evidence that Harley set out toward the school that morning. Instead, photos demonstrate Harley heading south from his home."

Port Clinton Police Chief to Dilly: 'Please call and ask for me. I will personally come to get you'
 
Last edited:
Well, the dogs weren't sniffing around on the roof.

Plus, brick strikes me as pretty scent-impermeable.

Other than that, I know just enough about science to be dangerous to forensics; but not enough to solidly explain anything to anyone. I feel the site has got some tracker dog experts somewhere, though, who might be able to answer.
Still if the dogs led to that house,plus they were at that house more than once. It wouldn't have hurt to check it out. Because Yeah He was there the whole time. The whole freaking time. Poor Harley. The whole freaking time.
MOO
 
Well, the dogs weren't sniffing around on the roof.

Plus, brick strikes me as pretty scent-impermeable.

Other than that, I know just enough about science to be dangerous to forensics; but not enough to solidly explain anything to anyone. I feel the site has got some tracker dog experts somewhere, though, who might be able to answer.
I raise and train working dogs, and this is perhaps why I am stuck on this case.
I am not prone to conspiracy theories, I do however have a healthy sceptics streak.
The only dogs I have seen reported as used were cadaver dogs. And that was in a search of the Dilly's home.
I don't see any mention of tracking dogs on the ground... Not that it would have mattered since the chief admitted once he saw the house was secure he believed it of no further interest.
A good cadaver dog can smell decades old bones through 20,' of earth. So had they searched the perimeter with the dogs it's possible they would have indicated but wether the handler could have worked out where the dog was indicating depends. Some handlers are amazingly intuitive others less so.
There are red flags with regards to the investigation and I believe there was negligence in this case. I am not here bashing anyone, just asking pertinent questions. Plenty of cases have appeared cut n dry then weren't some appeared hinky and weren't. I apreciate ppl don't like asking awkward questions it makes them uncomfortable, doesn't bother me though, which brings me back to why we are still here. I know why I am.
 
Last edited:
Just an assumption on my part (I may be studying criminal justice, but am not a member of a law enforcement team quite yet): IF a "bloody" sledgehammer was found at the scene, I am fairly certain it would have been carried out in a sealed evidence bag. How this group of people can see through an evidence bag is beyond my capabilities.

Those officers had far more patience than I would if faced with the same situation. Isn't a permit required for organized protests?

As far as I can tell,they have taken a midpoint in a news article and run with it even though it's been cleared up and clarified as mistaken info.
I personally do think something is off somewhere along the line,although I dont know what,but I do not agree with what this group of protesters did yesterday at all. It's not the way.

Sorry if this had been covered further along,I'm just catching up and replying as I go.
 
I raise and train working dogs, and this is perhaps why I am stuck on this case. I am not prone to conspiracy theories, I do however have a healthy sceptics streak.
The only dogs I have seen reported as used were cadaver dogs. And that was in a search of the Dilly's home.
I don't see any mention of tracking dogs on the ground... Not that it would have mattered since the chief admitted once he saw the house was secure he believed it of no further interest.
A good cadaver dog can smell decades old bones through 20,' of earth. So had they searched the perimeter with the dogs it's possible they would have indicated but wether the handler could have worked out where the dog was indicating depends. Some handlers are amazingly intuitive others less so.
There are red flags with regards to the investigation and I believe there was negligence in this case. I am not here bashing anyone, just asking pertinent questions. Plenty of cases have appeared cut n dry then weren't some appeared hinky and weren't. I apreciate ppl don't like asking awkward questions it makes them uncomfortable, which brings me back to why we are still here. I know why I am.

BBM

Here is mention of tracking dogs on the ground:

Kentucky Search Dog Association assisted in the search:
'Hope for Harley': Port Clinton community grieves teen's tragic death

Around a dozen K-9 teams:
Timeline of what's happened since Harley Dilly went missing
 
ITA. Once they did finally decide to check it out, they got permission Right away. Without protest,or question. One thing I would like to know is did the sniffer dogs lead them to that house, when they were searching with them??????? IIRC didn't the chief say they went over there more than once. Just how many times did they go over there???? How many times did he block searches,say we got this???? Give us a couple more days?????

I also wonder if they checked the crawlspace in their previous searches just in case he could have been under there.
 
Still if the dogs led to that house,plus they were at that house more than once. It wouldn't have hurt to check it out. Because Yeah He was there the whole time. The whole freaking time. Poor Harley. The whole freaking time.
MOO
They were at many many locations more than once.

And wherever he would have been found, people could say '... Because Yeah He was there the whole time....'

That is what one could say wherever he was found. 'why didnt they look there before:? He was there the whole time'

The searchers cannot win. Finding a young boy is a combination of luck and perseverance. There are way more hidey holes and crawl spaces than there are resources available. They can only do what they can do. And even then, they go at it wholeheartedly, against all odds.

At the end, they are met with critical backlash---why didn't they look in the chimney weeks ago, those lazy idiots....? Fire the chief!
 
I can only imagine that the tracking dogs didn't "hit" on anything. I'm pretty sure that if the dogs would have led them to that house, that they would have searched it immediately (or as soon as they could contact the owner or get a warrant).
 
But when they 1st found that coat it wasn't known to be a death scene.

Their hearts were in their throats I'm sure, when the realised he could be in that chimney. They urgently needed to get to him. They weren't worried about anything but that, most certainly.

Every death scene should be treated as a crime scene, but it wasn't a 'death' scene when they 1st saw the glasses and coat. It was still a mystery and an urgent one.

Wouldnt that still be a possible crime scene though?,if there was no way to immediately know it was a death scene,surely there was also no way to know it wasnt a crime scene of any type,therefore anything immediately found on scene should be treated as potential evidence,and I dont wish to sound pedantic but I believe at the point they realised he was in the chimney they would quickly have realised the urgency to get to him wasnt a life or death situation that meant they didnt have time to preserve possible evidence. ALL IMO.
 
Wouldnt that still be a possible crime scene though?,if there was no way to immediately know it was a death scene,surely there was also no way to know it wasnt a crime scene of any type,therefore anything immediately found on scene should be treated as potential evidence,and I dont wish to sound pedantic but I believe at the point they realised he was in the chimney they would quickly have realised the urgency to get to him wasnt a life or death situation that meant they didnt have time to preserve possible evidence. ALL IMO.

The most important thing, at that moment, was finding out if he was still alive. They didn't know how long he had been in there. Maybe he just climbed in the chimney earlier that day? They couldn't know that.

And preservation of life is always the 1st priority. Once they saw the jacket and glasses, their most immediate goal was to find the boy and assess his condition. They were not worried about preserving evidence at that moment. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
1,372
Total visitors
1,576

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,274
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top