Lisa Irwin - Missing - One Year Later

reply to post by gabby2011


They don't really say anything. So we're left to guess, which is what I'm doing. I think with that much WITNESS material saying she did this, they have reason to believe she did . But if they have no EVIDENCE to support that , they have to wait. Probably if this is true, the police feel they are in a corner, so to speak, knowing whathappened but no way to prove it. So their best hope is to wait for some evidence to show up or to wait for some new information to come out.
Which reminds me, very early on, there was some talk of TESTS being run and wwe'd know more when the results come in, so anyone heard any of them? I'm left to assume the test results had NOTHING of value because they surely are back by now, right?

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

They don't really say anything. So we're left to guess, which is what I'm doing. I think with that much WITNESS material saying she did this, they have reason to believe she did . But if they have no EVIDENCE to support that , they have to wait. Probably if this is true, the police feel they are in a corner, so to speak, knowing whathappened but no way to prove it. So their best hope is to wait for some evidence to show up or to wait for some new information to come out.
Which reminds me, very early on, there was some talk of TESTS being run and wwe'd know more when the results come in, so anyone heard any of them? I'm left to assume the test results had NOTHING of value because they surely are back by now, right?

Actually they would have evidence, they would have the family members word. Circumstantial perhaps, but that is enough evidence. The lack of a body does NOT guarantee that the defense wins, indeed the lack of a body often results in emotions, and outrage playing a sigificant part in a conviction. You might want to check out, > No Body Murder Cases <

As to test, it would depend on a number of things, type of test request, the backlog of test at the facility doing the test. I'm not sure at all it would be correct to assume any type, or all test would be back by now. Perhaps in a month or so it would be safe to assume most test should be back...

This is posted on mega's fb page.......

m.ibtimes.com...


Totally different story than Megan was telling uh.......the last time she spoke. Is any of it true of false?
you be the judge !

Originally posted by Dav1d

Originally posted by vogon42
reply to post by Dav1d

 

Anderson was profiled on the television show "Unsolved Mysteries"

Do you happen to have a link, or any info on this ONE TV show you are basing all of your information on?

Actually my "information" is based on a number of reports, that I've posted links to in the past, here is just one report by Daniel A. Smith > Fraudulent Use of Canines in Police Work.pdf < Who was a law enforcement office with Linkon Park for twenty years, 8 of which he served as a K9 handler. Just so we are clear ~ it doesn't come from a TV show protraying Police corruption.

Ah!! I see. Interesting read!! So, you lifted the data about Anderson word for word from this article (an act called "plagiarism" because you presented it as your own).

But, we'll let that part slide.
The pdf is an article written by a trained, experience LEO whose point is to warn LE agencies against using alternative dog handlers, listing agencies that are accredited and legitimate police dog training facilities, and repeating over and over again that these FEW fraudulent handlers had created a climate in which LE had to defend themselves against bogus criticism.

This paper will present case studies of police and civilian handled canine units that have led to serious problems for law enforcement agencies and detail specific ways that law enforcement can protect themselves from civil liability, false arrests, and loss or reversals of court decisions.

The focus of this paper will be detailing a few of these fraudulent handlers and then showing (scientific studies) that prove these dogs and handlers cannot perform these fantastic feats that other police dogs can’t.

Many legitimate police dog programs are being criticized by administrators because of the proliferation of fraudulent trainers and handlers claiming their dogs can do tasks that other dogs are incapable of performing

How can law enforcement agencies prevent all the problems associated with the use of the fraudulent dog trainers and handlers? First and foremost check backgrounds, ask for certification from a national police dog association and beware of claims that this dog can do things other police dogs can’t. Be extremely careful of using civilian dog handlers. A law enforcement agency has no administrative control over a civilian and most civilians are not trained in evidence preservation or court testimony.

and then gives these links for "certification requirements" from websites as recommendations for actual police-dog agencies that he deems to be credible and reliable. Ok, let's have a look!

18. North American Police Work Dog Association
Certification Requirements www.NAPWSA.com

Hm mm.. this link opens to show a list of sites about well spouses, and taking daytime naps (esp. for preschool through K age children). Rats....next:

19. United States Police Canine Association
Certification Requirements www.USPCA.com

looks promising! oh. Nope, this is the US Personal Chef Association. Curses! No info here either! Well, there's still one more possibility:

20. International Police Work Dog Association
Certification Requirements www.IPWDA.com

PAYDIRT! here's a snip!

MUTC hosts 2011 IPWDA National Workshop

Police Work Dog Teams from around the world recently traveled to Butlerville, Indiana to take part in the 2011 International Police Work Dog Association National Workshop which provides training and certification opportunities for the work dog teams.

followed by a vid link
and....WOW! It has current certification requirements!
No worries, for those of you who don't have access or time to go there, in my next post I'll include them!

reply to post by hotbakedtater

I keep clicking this thread for updates and news, but am tired of the bickering posts...

Partially I agree - but again a healthy debate is what ATS is all about.

Anyway, there's no reason why you can't scroll through and look for post with LINKS - they're easy to spot and there are a few of here who are diligent presenting links - as we find them. And not just MSM links mind you! Also, by now you should know the names of contributors who offer more conflict than fact. Use the scroll bar and move on to those who supply links and non-combative info and you'll be all set.

What a shame, in a case like this a continuous updated thread is wonderful, but I would have to say almost half the posts in this thread are bickering and in fighting, who has time to wade through it all? It is getting too hard to find the real nuggets of updates now.

Yes, those 'nuggets of info' are hard to find. At this point the 'leads' are 'drying up'.

It's getting more and more difficult to post 'headline' links and 'breaking news' beyond regurgitated information we've already perused. This is not the fault of anyone contributing to the thread. ----> News Flash: Maybe if the 'Brad-Wins' took the time to speak to the police separately we'd have more news, but, until they do? Nada. That being said I'd be glad to U2U you when the MSM info comes in.

For now - it's just a waiting game and between now and then the contributors for Lisa are doing more than their fare share of debating back and forth which is only natural for a group of people with different view points all associated within a difficult and emotional situation. But we’re not just giving up an moving on either are we - and for that I sincerely applaud each and ever participant in this thread!

I bet I am not the only lurker to this thread who feels this way. I wish the fighting would stop. There is a missing child out there, and it is looking like something sinister happened to her.

Agreed. But here's something to think on. The FBI, police and other interested associations have their 'rant and round table sessions too - just like this thread. This is all good. So please, don't be so hard on the contributors here. We've all spent a lot of our own personal time for Lisa. We've spent a great deal of energy and contributed from the heart - regardless if we agree or not. Keeping that in mind? If you were ever so fortunate to sit in on the conversations taking place in the Police Department and FBI offices? Your ears would burn.

peace

Testing standards page on International Police Work Dog Association

BASIC CADAVER SEARCH TEST:

Criteria-
1.The search will be conducted in a minimum size area of two (2) acres or approximately 295' x 295’ containing moderate vegetation. The area does not have to be a rectangular or square.
2.The training aids shall consist of legally obtained cadaver training material.
3.The training aids shall be placed in the test area a minimum of one hour prior to the beginning of testing.
4.The training aid(s) shall be either above ground no higher than six feet, on the surface, or buried no deeper than 12 inches below the soil surface.
5.There shall be a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of two (2) training aids used. If two (2) aids are used, one (1) shall be above surface.
6.Above ground sources shall be concealed so as not to be visible to the dog or handler. The burial site shall be camouflaged so visible ground disturbance is minimal.
7.There shall be a minimum of three (3) holes dug to ensure the dog does not alert on earth disturbance.
8.Animal remains may be on the surface to act as a distraction.
9.The dog must locate all aids placed for testing.
10.This shall be a one (1) hour search test. (Master Trainers may extend the time limit based on weather and terrain conditions)
11.The dog may not compromise the scent source. Compromise is defined as eating, rolling in, or urinating/defecating on the scent source. If at any time during the evaluation the canine compromises the scent source, the canine team will automatically fail the evaluation.
12.The handler must articulate the search strategy to the evaluator.
13.The handler must recognize the canine’s trained indication and advice the evaluator when the source has been located.
14.The team must locate ALL aids placed for testing.
15.The team automatically fails if the handler calls an alert on the animal remains.
16.The handler must complete the Cadaver Search Report.
17.The handler must complete the Basic Written Cadaver Search Test.


ADVANCED CADAVER SEARCH TEST:

Criteria-
1.The canine team must have taken the Basic Cadaver Search Test first before taking the Advanced Cadaver Search Test.
2.The test will consist of four (4) evolutions that are scenario based. The dog must successfully locate the scent source in each search area that contains source material.
3.The dog may not compromise the scent source. Compromise is defined as eating, rolling in, or urinating/defecating on the scent source. If at any time during the evaluation the canine compromises the scent source, the canine team will automatically fail the evaluation.

The test will include the following: ◦Land disarticulated remains evaluation
◦Buried evaluation
◦Hanging evaluation.
◦Negative area. The negative area will be consistent in size with other search areas.
◦At least one (1) of the search venues shall contain a minimum of two (2) man-made structures to simulate an urban setting and shall contain at least one human remains training aid.

4.The testing areas will be numbered 1-4. The testing handler will draw the order of the testing areas. No results will be given until all areas are completed.
5.The handler must successfully complete each phase of testing locating all aids and offering no trained indications on distractions. The handler must complete the Cadaver Search Report at the end of testing.

The site has several up-to-date pages, listing Trainers, Master Trainers, K-9 Honor Roll, upcoming events,, current legal issues citing cases, and more. It does not mention Mr Grime or his dogs on any of the pages that I can see.

I'll keep looking for more info!
(Oh, and also, didn't see ANY information saying anything about 100% failure. Not one word. But I haven't looked into all the biblio of the article yet or cross-checked the articles he used.)

reply to post by wildtimes


WIld, anything about how they come into ownership of this continual supply of fresh corpses? I'm guessing medical research donations, etc.

Here's a paper written regarding cadaver dogs' reliability
dogsdontlie.com...

Originally written on 7th June 2008

Article by Dr Rosemary Claire Taylor MA MB BChir (Cantab)

Olfaction, the act or process of smelling, is the primary special sense possessed by dogs. A dog’s sense of smell is a thousand times more sensitive than humans. Dogs have more than 220 million olfactory receptors in their nose, whereas humans only have 5 million. Specially trained dogs have been used to locate forensic cadaver material and disaster survivors. Highly trained dogs assisted the emergency services in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001.

Cadaver dogs need to undergo rigorous training.

A variety of breeds can be trained to hunt forensic material. Bloodhounds, springer spaniels and labradors are commonly used. Trained cadaver dogs have the ability to detect decomposing bodies beneath running water, for example when a corpse is weighted down, and placed at the bottom of a river.

Her conclusions, ater saying

I have done a thorough search of academic journals on this subject, and will present my findings as follows

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

Reference:
Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany

Her article goes on to discuss the McCann case and an older case (Zapata 1979), showing how the cadaver dogs were put under scrutiny and doubt in court, and Zapata's judge said they were unreliable. Then in 2004 the police used new techniques and new dogs. Later, Zapate pleaded guilty (the dogs had been right).

Police decided to conduct new searches using cadaver dogs, a new investigative technique, when an old friend of Mrs Zapata contacted them about the case in 2004.

reply to post by schmae


FASCINATING THIS >>>>'''The dog may not compromise the scent source. Compromise is defined as eating, rolling in, or urinating/defecating on the scent source. If at any time during the evaluation the canine compromises the scent source, the canine team will automatically fail the evaluation. ''''

I would never have thought of it but as a dog owner I can see how NATURAL it would be for a dog to want to urinate on or roll in the source. This is instinct to dogs. This one item alone has given me more respect for the process, NOT that I didnt' have any before. It just seems like they leave little to chance with the training of these dogs. Nice find!

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by wildtimes

 

WIld, anything about how they come into ownership of this continual supply of fresh corpses? I'm guessing medical research donations, etc.

Schmae I can sort of answer this. Some dogs are trained using pseudoscents, scents created to mimic the smell of decay.

Some are trained at "body farms", like the ones at UT Knoxville and Western Carolina University.

It is my understanding, these dogs are trained in search and rescue, with cadaver scents being part of that. Some are trained first using the pseudoscents, then train at a body farm to further enhance their scent abilities.

Edit to add... When it comes to the "body farm" at UT Knoxville, people donate their bodies to the facility. I had a friend of the family die a few years ago and he wanted his body donated to the "farm", but they were not accepting new bodies at the time.

OiO

reply to post by schmae


schmae. I'm looking for info on where the trainers acquire the tools/resources for training, will let you know...
meanwhile, I found another site www.k9forensic.org...
in the FAQ page it talks about different types of dogs.

Remember how Taco was trying to say the dogs can hit on feces (old diapers) urine, etc, rather than actual human cadaver scents?

Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a trailing or area search dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies.

Decomp Dog
The term "decomposition dog" was started by the NecroSearch group. They felt it better describes how dogs will indicate decomposed human scent which includes blood, feces, urine or other material with human scent on it.

Still looking...back with more!!

reply to post by schmae

WIld, anything about how they come into ownership of this continual supply of fresh corpses? I'm guessing medical research donations, etc.

I'm donating my bod to cadaver dog research.
No joke.

TAKE THAT TACOPINA!

FASCINATING THIS >>>>'''The dog may not compromise the scent source. Compromise is defined as eating, rolling in, or urinating/defecating on the scent source. If at any time during the evaluation the canine compromises the scent source, the canine team will automatically fail the evaluation. ''''

HOLD ON! HOLD ON!
Maybe not. *evil grin*

All kidding aside though - if I'm in the States when I 'pass over' I'd like to have my bod go to the 'Death's Acre' - Body Farm'. (GREAT video link)!

I may not be able to help Lisa right now - but after I'm dead? I can help other 'Lisa's' At least I hope so!

Warning - video is a weeee uggy!

reply to post by silo13


Stll looking, silo, but the site linked in my last has some good info on the training itself:

Training detection dogs usually begins when they are still puppies, at about 6-8 weeks old. The puppy is introduced to the desired scent source in an open area with no distractions. When the puppy looks at or sniffs the source a reward is given. It only takes a few training sessions for the puppy to understand what their new job is. Training sessions are short, but may be repeated three to four times a day. As the puppy matures and learns the scent work, longer and more difficult training problems will commence. For historical work dogs are trained to do a passive alert behavior, usually a sit or down. The dogs are rewarded using food, a favorite toy, or praise from the handler. As the dog continues to advance in their training, multiple scent sources are used in a single training session.
The types of scent sources and their location vary depending on the discipline the dog is being trained for. Dogs being trained to do cadaver work are trained using fresh scent sources including: blood, hair, bone, teeth with residual blood and tissue, and body fluids. The scent sources are located at or above ground level. Human remains detection dogs are trained using scent sources in all stages of decomposition. The scent sources are located above and below ground. Training scenarios emphasize crime scene situations. These dogs are not trained on live human scent or on articles with fresh live human scent. Historical human remains detection canines are trained using older scent sources including: dry old bones, teeth with no blood or tissue remaining, artifacts, old grave dirt, and coffin wood.

This really is a fascinating subject -- I LOVE dogs, incredible creatures worthy of so much more respect and regard than some folks give them.

I'm guessing that cadavers and/or specimens used for training are from donors, same as where medical schools get theirs. Where I live it's routine to be asked when renewing driver's license if you want to be an organ donor. I was once with a guy who worked as a gravedigger (yup. not kidding) for a while, and was given a tour of a mortuary by the owner (of the cemetery and the mortuary). He saw a corpse awaiting burial that had been an organ donor, whose bones had been removed. He said it was really bizarre how the deceased looked like a Gumby, no bones...ew.

Anyway, I'll keep looking.

reply to post by OneisOne


reply to post by silo13


Wow, team, I think we're doing great work this morning! All this info is FANTASTIC!!
Thank you both for those links!!

ETS: Guys & gals, I've spent the last half hour looking up resource info for cadavers. There are multiple facilities across the US which accept donations of cadavers for use in science and research. It's not uncommon, and I'm confident that the police and forensic experts would have no shortage of sources from which to acquire actual scent sources rather than synthetic.

To suspect they are illegally hoarding body parts is ridiculous. It's been legal to use cadavers/parts of them for science and research since the 1880s.

If anyone really wants me to post links to this readily available info, please let me know. And btw, there's a book called "Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers" but DON'T click the amazon link, at least not this morning using IE on Win7!! !! It blew up my computer with a billion popup boxes saying "failed Windowspos" I had to force a shut down to get it to stop!

there is a lot to read here... could I just ask, what is the description of the person carrying the baby?

reply to post by schmae

They don't really say anything. So we're left to guess, which is what I'm doing. I think with that much WITNESS material saying she did this, they have reason to believe she did . But if they have no EVIDENCE to support that , they have to wait. Probably if this is true, the police feel they are in a corner, so to speak, knowing whathappened but no way to prove it. So their best hope is to wait for some evidence to show up or to wait for some new information to come out.

They would have the evidence of the phone calls made to family...and have recordings of her saying what she has said..

It would seem that would be enough evidence ?

reply to post by BlackSatinDancer


There were several different descriptions given from various locations and witnesses. Regarding both the carrier as well as the baby's state of undress. At least one said "bald." I think I recall there being different height/weight, age range, skin tones reported, too...but I might be mistaken on that bit.

reply to post by gabby2011


I don't know Gab. The proof the calls happened doesn't tell what she SAID in those calls. Could it be she never told police the phones didn't work? And only told that to the press? I don't know why she would do this, but it's possible I guess. I don't know where a witness statement falls on the evidence ladder. I would think it's good for getting more information and pointing the investigation in the right direction. But as far as standing up in court, maybe not quite solid enough. I didn't read your link yet, but I intend to !

Thanks Gabby, I'm reading your link now.

nobodycases.com...

Originally posted by schmae
reply to post by gabby2011

 

I don't know Gab. The proof the calls happened doesn't tell what she SAID in those calls. Could it be she never told police the phones didn't work? And only told that to the press? I don't know why she would do this, but it's possible I guess. I don't know where a witness statement falls on the evidence ladder. I would think it's good for getting more information and pointing the investigation in the right direction. But as far as standing up in court, maybe not quite solid enough. I didn't read your link yet, but I intend to !

I was thinking that there would be evidence on the families phones.. ?? Just because the Irwins having missing phones..doesn't mean the family members phones are missing.. and police would have access to any conversations on those phones during that day if they wanted it...and if she indeed asked for help.. in covering things up.. they would have all the evidence they need to either charge her..or claim she is a suspect because of incriminating evidence..

So far they have done neither.. which makes me think these claims may not be true.