The Canines

[logicworks]

I continue to find it unbelievable that the car was moved from the lot before the dogs arrived to track, or the door opened, IF it was indeed opened in the lot. The disappearance has always seemed to have a 'timing' factor built into it. IF the disappearance had occurred on a weekday, is it far more likely the dogs could have arrived sooner and the car remained on the lot till such time?

The missing person report coming in when it did, Friday near midnight, the beginning of the weekend shifts, when most of the regulars are off for the weekend, a time when the detective(s) would be off. Not certain what shifts dog trainers work, but it took approximately 18 hours for one or two dogs? to arrive on the scene, car already moved from location.

Would a weekday disappearance have made a difference? Possibly in the minds of LE, considering a trainer with dog may have been able to arrive on scene faster than on a weekend.

I wish I could find that first report that came out in the news regarding the tracking where DetZ describes 'problems'. Another mysterious disappearance ---the news article.

One year later, we are given the 20 yard version. What I don't understand is----if the dog actually told them RG walked 20 yards away and got into a vehicle, what was DetZ talking about problems with the lot texture and temperature and dew and shrubs and buildings? I remember that much from the report but little else than DetZ saying the dogs had a tough time due to all of the above reasons he mentioned.

I would guess that the biggest problem the dogs would have had was the result of a decision having been made to tow the vehicle from the lot before dogs and trainer arrived. If they were concerned that overnight temperature factors could affect evidence inside, why didn't they bring in a dog on Saturday evening? That move should have been the most important one made after the car was found.
JMO

[UndertheRadar]

Not certain what shifts dog trainers work, but it took approximately 18 hours for one or two dogs? to arrive on the scene, car already moved from location.

On the number of dogs, my memory is reading, some time ago, an article which described three dogs, a Bloodhound and two others which were described in the article as "tracking dogs." I remember at the time wondering if the writer had enough of a clue to make the distinction between a tracker and a trailer, or whether this was simply the usual muddying of terminology that occurs. I haven't been able to find the article in a long while--hoping I can unearth it at some point, though it may be one of those which has gone and disappeared itself.

I wish I could find that first report that came out in the news regarding the tracking where DetZ describes 'problems'. Another mysterious disappearance ---the news article. One year later, we are given the 20 yard version. What I don't understand is----if the dog actually told them RG walked 20 yards away and got into a vehicle, what was DetZ talking about problems with the lot texture and temperature and dew and shrubs and buildings? I remember that much from the report but little else than DetZ saying the dogs had a tough time due to all of the above reasons he mentioned.

Can't say I remember this particular disappeared article. But I do remember Billwahoo making some mention of such things. The context I recall was more a general statement, though--that gravel and temperature and such can pose problems. (I'll have to see if I have that post somewhere.) But here's where the distinction between trailer and tracker gets important. A pure tracker would have a greater challenge with gravel (though not necessarily "trouble"). But pure trackers aren't given a scent to work from. They follow human footsteps in disturbed vegetation and dirt, etc., not "Person X's scent." IOW, a pure tracker is valuable in a situation where there's no scent to offer the dog--let's say from the scene of a bank robbery or a hold-up where the robber took off on foot. But LE had two options for offering scent to dogs at the SOS lot, RG's scent and scent from the driver's seat. They didn't need a dog or dogs who worked only following footsteps and ground disturbances.

[Politigal]

On the number of dogs, my memory is reading, some time ago, an article which described three dogs, a Bloodhound and two others which were described in the article as "tracking dogs." I remember at the time wondering if the writer had enough of a clue to make the distinction between a tracker and a trailer, or whether this was simply the usual muddying of terminology that occurs. I haven't been able to find the article in a long while--hoping I can unearth it at some point, though it may be one of those which has gone and disappeared itself.



Can't say I remember this particular disappeared article. But I do remember Billwahoo making some mention of such things. The context I recall was more a general statement, though--that gravel and temperature and such can pose problems. (I'll have to see if I have that post somewhere.) But here's where the distinction between trailer and tracker gets important. A pure tracker would have a greater challenge with gravel (though not necessarily "trouble"). But pure trackers aren't given a scent to work from. They follow human footsteps in disturbed vegetation and dirt, etc., not "Person X's scent." IOW, a pure tracker is valuable in a situation where there's no scent to offer the dog--let's say from the scene of a bank robbery or a hold-up where the robber took off on foot. But LE had two options for offering scent to dogs at the SOS lot, RG's scent and scent from the driver's seat. They didn't need a dog or dogs who worked only following footsteps and ground disturbances.

Here's Boardreader's archive of Billywahoo's post...

http://boardreader.com/s/billywahoo+conditions.html?d=0&b=0&extended_search=1&q1=billywahoo+conditions&dateSwitch=0

[UndertheRadar]

Here's Boardreader's archive of Billywahoo's post...

http://boardreader.com/s/billywahoo+conditions.html?d=0&b=0&extended_search=1&q1=billywahoo+conditions&dateSwitch=0

Thanks, Pgal. Unfortunately, clicking the link just gives an "invalid thread," so all we get is that initial snippet. But that part is essentially as I remember, with its "from what I gather." With so many now disappeared articles and defunct threads, I do wish I had a photographic memory.

[Serendipitous1]

Thanks, Pgal. Unfortunately, clicking the link just gives an "invalid thread," so all we get is that initial snippet. But that part is essentially as I remember, with its "from what I gather." With so many now disappeared articles and defunct threads, I do wish I had a photographic memory.Billywahoo posted (6/7/05): "the dogs wouldn't have assuredly followed the scent due to the parking lot conditions and timespan. straight gravel in the lot is a problem from what I gather. given the search that occurred in the week(s) following, LE apparently didn't place a huge amount of weight on the dogs not picking up a scent..."

And in another post (same day) regarding the published inference that RG may have gotten into another vehicle, "i don't think LE 'acted' that way, but it was simply one explanation or scenario offered. the other offered, but less sexy, was that they just couldn't pick up a scent beyond where he may have lingered (the car location itself). i'm not sure where the dogs came from, but they were somewhat easily attainable. the cadaver dog used on the river was something that had to be sought out."

[Serendipitous1]

And (see above) in an earlier (5/9) post, billywahoo: "i think it's well established why dogs may not have picked up a sent [sic]. and with my own eyes, i can tell you i don't find it surprising, albeit i'm not an expert on S&R dogs. the parking lot is gravel-based, dusty, and has not vegetation to speak of. from what i do know, grass, bushes, etc are easy to maintain scent due to body contact. if he didn't roll around in the parking lot, you've only got the bottom of his shoes to leave any trace. take that description and then add to it that the dogs did not search the site until sunday (if i recall correctly). if he drove the car there, that's friday - sunday before a dog searched a dusty, gravel parking lot. and judging by this question, it appears you think i'm trying to come off as an expert on investigative techniques. that's incorrect. i'm an expert on the facts of this case and nothing more."

[Serendipitous1]

It was said that the dog(s) searched beyond the gravel lot that day (i.e. the park and likely the river's edge (from where someone, at some point, apparently had to have tossed a hard drive). I am no dog expert either. But as to the physical conditions at the time, it was an extremely dry April with several brush fires in that region. That dry period did not end until the weekend following the disappearance.

[UndertheRadar]

Thanks for finding the old posts, S1.

[snip]
As I looked around, still thinking we must be in the wrong lot, I thought this lot is SOOOOO small, and all of the reasons previously given for why scent COULDN'T be picked up were actually there. Everything there looked perfect for dog tracking. The trees, the shrubs, a house, with a 'for rent' sign on the side entrance, the dirt, did not arrive overnight, or in 1.5 years. I just stood there and continued to think back to those reasons 'why scent COULDN'T be found', and said 'HUH??'
JMO

Yes, thanks, S1.

Logic, add to what you've said that pure trackers do indeed work on gravel. Even an AKC VST title generally requires a pure tracker to work on gravel, and those dogs are primarily "pet" dogs owner handled, not LE trained or LE handled canines.

As for trailers, they work on asphalt and concrete all the time in urban settings, with an FBI documented 96% success rate after 48 hours in testing. I'm glad BW was honest enough to admit that he was an expert in the facts of the case and not in scent work. A trailing dog doesn't have to work from footsteps (the "bottom of the shoes" reference). A Bloodhound is by definition and design a trailer.

[J. J. in Phila]

There was a (no doubt dry) grass parking strip next to the car. It would have been likely, if it was pooling, the scent would have found there.

[2-B]

With Pgal having been able to resurrect the photos that Tomkat from freerepublic took on 4/17/05, I wanted to resurrect this thread for a moment.

Tomkat's one photo of the corner of the SOS lot on 4/17, if you hit the (+) magnifier on your computer and slide the photo over to get the best view of the lot possible, shows enough of the lot to indicate that most of the gravel in the lot appears to remain at the outskirts, while the lot itself appears to be largely dirt.

I'd like to be clear: the distinctions already made on this thread still stand.

A) despite what was put out early in the case, a tracking dog can indeed track on surfaces other than vegetation and

B) the Bloodhound is not a tracker; he's a trailing dog.

That said, Logic's observations in a post on this thread seem confirmed by Tomkat's photo taken the Sunday after Ray disappeared. The lot appears to be one that was once covered by gravel that has largely been lost to attrition, leaving a dirt surface below exposed. IOW, the Bloodhound should have had no problem trailing on this particular surface. Given the surface and the environmental conditions, Dixon's "no trail" is significant.

[2-B]

Having been an owner of trail-finders for many, many years, I can say with 100% certainty there would have been absolutely no reason for a dog not trailing or tracking there, if there was anything there to find. The conditions don't get much better than that, unless it would have been so wet that visible tracks would have showed a path. There are a number of areas in the lot where there is dampness showing in the photos.

At one point some time ago, I looked at the winds, temperature, humidity, etc. for the area/time period. Pretty ideal conditions. (As a comparison, recently I posted a training map for a Bloodhound who had worked a 51-hour old trail successfully after flooding rains.)

What I don't understand is why, if these photos were taken close together in time, and the Mini is still at the PSP parking lot, what's with the cars in the lot particularly in the front space where the woman with daughter said she saw the car on Saturday 2 p.m.-ish? Was the entire lot not 'scented'? Certainly wouldn't find any visible tracks in possibly a damp area by that first parking space if people were permitted to come in and park there.

Was the photo taken at a different time than the one while the car was still at the PSP station? Any idea what time of day both of these photos were taken, and (lover of photos capturing unexplained energy as I am) what is that image of someone in the passenger seat of the Mini, with a shaft of light beaming down on it?
JMO

Reading tomkat's post over on freerepublic, it appears the photos were posted there at 11:32 a.m. Eastern time on Sunday morning, so they had to have been taken some time between sunrise and the posting time. The light seems fairly strong in the photos, so I'm guessing closer to the posting time than to sunrise.

It also appears he took the photos sequentially and close in time, the photo at the lot first, then on his way home, the photo of the Mini at the barracks.

Wouldn't the posting time be approximately the time everyone was waiting for the dogs to arrive at the SOS lot? Wonder if the white car was still parked in that first slot at that point.

As for the beam of light, I see what you're saying when I magnify the photo. To the right, there's a beam of light from the car at an angle, and what appears at first to be the headrest of the passenger seat is obviously higher on the passenger side. If PF routinely rode on the passenger side, the headrest would not need to be higher than on the driver's side. If someone is in the passenger side of the Mini at that point, is it a PSP officer "processing" the vehicle? Would that be done in the lot or in a more "sterile" environment, say in a garaged area?

[Politigal]

I tried to enlarge the photo of the car at the barracks and perhaps on the passenger side - the sun visor is just down?

[2-B]

I tried to enlarge the photo of the car at the barracks and perhaps on the passenger side - the sun visor is just down?

A good suggestion, Pgal, but I'm not sure. When I just magnify the photo off the webpage that comes up from your original link, it looks like that's possible. But when I save the photo and put it into my good photo program and enlarge, it looks as if there are "dark" pixels in an area not accounted for by the sun visor, in an area where you'd expect shoulders on a person to be. Hard to see in that magnified state though . . .

[2-B]

Like you, I would think the car would have been in a sterile environment while awaiting the dog(s) arrival. I would then think the dog would have been scented to the driver's seat to see if it then went somewhere in another area of the room where scent item of RG's was placed in order to clear up whether RG was the last driver.

They wouldn't need to wait for the dogs' arrival to have taken a scent sample from the seat to be delivered to the dogs at the lot. The question is whether this was ever done. Did LE attempt to determine a trail for the last driver of the car? Or did they merely attempt to determine a trail for Ray Gricar?



While it seems like a long stretch, I recall the truck driver who was found with just one piece of a hair of the victim still in his truck months later.

If my memory is correct, you're likely thinking of the Dawn Birnbaum case, which ironically Ray Gricar prosecuted.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/1994/06/06-14-94tdc/06-14-94dnews-1.asp

ETA:

Tire tracks found near Dawn's body indicated that she'd been dropped off there by someone in a tractor-trailer, and plaster casts were made of the tire tracks. The casts eventually matched those on a rig driven by Cruz, and a single hair found in the carpeting on the passenger side door matched that of the unidentified victim, who by then had been identified as Dawn Marie Birnbaum.

http://www.ilasting.com/dawnmariebirnbaum/memorial.php

[2-B]

A scent sample taken of the seat delivered to the lot to the dogs alone would not answer whether RG the driver. While it could establish the direction A driver of the Mini may have gone after exiting the vehicle, that does not establish that RG was the driver.

I would first want to establish exactly who was being followed in that lot, RG or A driver, prior to getting to the lot. Taking a scent sample from the seat and a scent item of RG's to the lot also would not establish RG to have been the last driver, since the car had been sitting in the lot a period of time, therefore leaving RG's scent there.

The seat or the scent sample from the seat should have been presented to the dog, with an item of RG's somewhere for the dog to go search it out. If the dog went to RG's scent item after being given the seat sample and basically said RG's scent item was a match to top scent/rafts on the seat, then it's time to proceed to the lot to find out where the trail led to from there. First was to confirm whether it was RG they were following or not RG, IMO.

Taking the seat sample to the lot alone would not establish that RG was the driver. Taking a scent item of RG's to the lot and placing it there for the dog to find would certainly confuse the rest of the test. Obviously we need to see a copy of that dog report to know in what order facts were established. First necessity, prior to arrival at the lot was to know that the top scent on the driver's seat was that of RG. If that wasn't first proven, the rest proves nothing, IMO.
JMO

I'm assuming the dogs at the lot being given the sample from the driver's seat and a scent sample from RG, then using the missing member method to eliminate RG when scented to the sample from the seat, which would be SOP.

But until and unless we see the darned handlers' log, we'll never know whether the driver's seat was ever swabbed for a scent sample, unfortunately!

[Saunterer]

There's a third photo in this set:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050506012727/24.137.12.6/tomkat/host/17apr05b.jpg

The parking lot where the Mini Cooper was found is nearly empty, as are some of the curb spaces on both streets, while the other parking lot looks full. That suggests that LE had the lot closed off until shortly before the photos were taken. And if that's the case, it suggests that the sniffer dog had already been there.

[2-B]

I tried to add this to my post about the missing member method and ran out of editing time. This is the FBI's description of working with blended odors:

Scent Articles with Blended Odors (Contaminated-Scent Articles)
Contaminated-scent articles are those that have been handled by someone other than the suspect. Scent articles may possess the smell of family members or law enforcement personnel. Knowing that a trained scent-discriminating dog will trail any of the human odors present on the collected pad, the dog-handler team must demonstrate a proficiency in the missing-member method. With all known people who handled the article present for the dog to dismiss before starting to trail, the dog is tasked to trail the missing scent. A properly trained dog will sort through the available smells and trail the missing person.

http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backissu/july2004/research/2004_03_research03.htm

[2-B]

There's a third photo in this set:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050506012727/24.137.12.6/tomkat/host/17apr05b.jpg

The parking lot where the Mini Cooper was found is nearly empty, as are some of the curb spaces on both streets, while the other parking lot looks full. That suggests that LE had the lot closed off until shortly before the photos were taken. And if that's the case, it suggests that the sniffer dog had already been there.

Something doesn't add up then, unless the time stamp is wrong on the freerepublic site. According to KA, the dogs had not arrived when she left Lewisburg that Sunday morning:

I left to return to Bellefonte around 11:00-11:15 AM. At that point the only activity was the anticipated arrival of a helicopter and dogs.

http://gricar.disappearance.googlepages.com/gricardisappearance

[2-B]

The parking lot where the Mini Cooper was found is nearly empty, as are some of the curb spaces on both streets, while the other parking lot looks full. That suggests that LE had the lot closed off until shortly before the photos were taken. And if that's the case, it suggests that the sniffer dog had already been there.

[bolding mine]

OTOH, S., Elisea from WS describes only about 5 cars in the lot when she and her daughter were there at 2:30 Saturday afternoon. If anything, I would expect more cars there on a Saturday afternoon than on a Sunday morning. So perhaps the relative scarcity of cars does not tell us that much?

[Saunterer]

Both lots are part of the SoS though. So why are so many parked in the lot further from the building? I thought maybe it might be church goers. Didn't someone post that there was a church nearby? And maybe that's the case. But the SoS opened earlier that day (8 am) than every other day of the week (10 am), according to this archived page from April 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050409020306/www.streetofshops.net/contactus.asp

Unless the owner knows he doesn't need all the parking spaces on Sunday morning and lets church goers use the one lot, it's an odd picture.

[2-B]

Both lots are part of the SoS though. So why are so many parked in the lot further from the building? I thought maybe it might be church goers. Didn't someone post that there was a church nearby? And maybe that's the case. But the SoS opened earlier that day (8 am) than every other day of the week (10 am), according to this archived page from April 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050409020306/www.streetofshops.net/contactus.asp

Unless the owner knows he doesn't need all the parking spaces on Sunday morning and lets church goers use the one lot, it's an odd picture.

I checked the hours of operation as well and thought 8 a.m. was an odd opening for Sunday compared to the other days of the week, unless there's some connection to getting the church crowd in before services! I'd forgotten about the church being nearby and the possibility church goers might be using the other lot. That does happen often, generally when businesses are closed at that hour, though. Wonder if Bennett let church goers park in the farther lot while reserving the closer one for SOS patrons on Sunday a.m.?

Still doesn't clarify whether the dogs had yet arrived when the photo was snapped. If the time stamp on freerepublic is correct, it wouldn't appear they had.

[Saunterer]

I got the impression that KA's recollections were of the goings on at the PSP barracks in Montandon, not the SoS area. And I don't necessarily hold her to either perfect information or perfect recall.

Her easiest route to and from the barracks would be to use PA-147 and I-80. But it's inconceivable to me that she would not have visited the SoS area at some point (though she made no reference to it).

In the photos there appears to be no LE presence and nothing to prevent the public from parking in the lot where the Mini was found. Wouldn't it occur to LE (and maybe also KA) that it might be a good idea to protect that area until that part of the investigation was done done ... until the sniffer dog came through?

[Saunterer]

BTW, I thank Politigal for finding those photos. It filled a large hole in my own personal ruminations. And isn't it nice to reflect upon them without the distraction of the self-appointed Gricar guru?

[2-B]

I got the impression that KA's recollections were of the goings on at the PSP barracks in Montandon, not the SoS area. And I don't necessarily hold her to either perfect information or perfect recall.

Her easiest route to and from the barracks would be to use PA-147 and I-80. But it's inconceivable to me that she would not have visited the SoS area at some point (though she made no reference to it).

In the photos there appears to be no LE presence and nothing to prevent the public from parking in the lot where the Mini was found. Wouldn't it occur to LE (and maybe also KA) that it might be a good idea to protect that area until that part of the investigation was done done ... until the sniffer dog came through?

I also had the impression KA was at the PSP barracks but assumed from her manuscript that she was made aware of whatever was to come next at the SOS lot, given that RG's disappearance and MS's camping trip put her next in line from the DA's office. It's even possible that the PSP dog handlers would have been expected first at the barracks for some kind of briefing, with a trip to the SOS lot to follow. Not certain what the protocol would have been, given that the dog was not being brought in to follow an escaping criminal where minutes would count.

As for protecting the area, IMO, the need for "protection" might be a bit overblown, given how lonely that little parking lot appears in those photos. Bloodhounds routinely handle drop trails on highways and heavily contaminated trails in urban settings. I don't see much opportunity for anything that would contaminate the area in such a way that would prevent any LE trained, certified, and handled Bloodhound from working there, unless some nefarious character who had staged the scene came back and used one of the few chemicals available which can throw off a Bloodhound's scenting ability. JMO.

[2-B]

BTW, I thank Politigal for finding those photos. It filled a large hole in my own personal ruminations. And isn't it nice to reflect upon them without the distraction of the self-appointed Gricar guru?

I've thanked Pgal privately for these, but adding my public thanks to Saunterer's here. And yes, we've managed to have a productive discussion today--such a nice change of pace.

[J. J. in Phila]

BTW, I thank Politigal for finding those photos. It filled a large hole in my own personal ruminations. And isn't it nice to reflect upon them without the distraction of the self-appointed Gricar guru?


I thank her too; I should point out that the commentary on them has been out since April 2005. :biggrinjester:

[J. J. in Phila]

Doesn't add up either way, if they hadn't yet arrived at 11-11:15 and this was the lot prior to. Only other way would be if they arrived earlier. IIRC, DetZ mentioned something about the dogs having a tough time due to 'dew' or 'frost' or something that gave some indication of moisture, but that didn't coincide with something else I read somewhere about the dogs arriving sometime around noon-ish? If that is the case, they certainly didn't go out of their way to preserve any evidence, it seems.


Quite some time ago I found a church that was a few blocks away when I was sleuthing around for the possibility someone in one of the 'programs' such as AA or NA met there at noon, looking at the possibility of a connection to the drug case. Too far away to think anyone would be parking in that lot for church, IMO.
JMO

According to JKA, the dogs arrived around 11:30 AM on 4/17/05.

On the nights of 4/15-16 and 4/16-17 Lewisburg was below freezing, if that helps. I don't recall any comments from DZ about that.

[2-B]

I think there is more to 'protecting' the space than just odors. The dog could have led the trainer to something more that may not have been protected if the lot wasn't cordoned off prior to dog(s) arrival.

When the car was found, it was supposedly in a parking space and once the dog(s) were brought in we were told there was something that might indicate he got into another car. I would guess that could possibly be a trail to another parking space.

I would think that while LE was there the evening before when the Mini was there any soft areas near the Mini where a footprint might be evident would have been checked out, photographed, plaster cast if possible.

Considering the dog supposedly 'possibly' indicated a trail to another space, nothing there to say there might not have been a footprint or a tire imprint there much like the 'Dawn' case. (example: look at the photo of the first car in the lot, rear tire sunk in).

If the dog(s) went to another location in the lot and a shopper had already pulled in and out of that space and possibly tramped in an area, evidence is destroyed. Until the dog(s) arrived, I find it hard to believe they went through the entire lot looking for footprints or tire imprints since until the dog(s) arrived, they likely wouldn't know which direction the driver of the Mini went in. IMO, leaving the area 'unprotected' definitely doesn't seem like proper procedure.

Was there something at that point while the Mini was still in the parking lot that led them to immediately assume that whatever happened to RG was of his own choosing and that it was he who left the car there? Evidence of the car being there is not evidence RG was ever there. Their task was to prove he was, and IMO, I see nothing that proves he was.
JMO

That's just it, though, Logic. I'm not convinced any thought beyond "Which way did Ray Gricar go?" went into the scent work at the SOS. I'm not convinced thought was given at the early stage to the possibility that anyone but Ray might have driven the Mini to Lewisburg; to the need to scent the dogs to the driver's seat for a driver other than Ray; to look for evidence of someone other than Ray (beyond scent) having gotten out of the car in the lot. I'll apologize up and down to the BPD if it turns out I'm wrong, but that's my hunch based on what Chief Dixon was saying at the time.

[2-B]

I thank her too; I should point out that the commentary on them has been out since April 2005. :biggrinjester:

We should have known it was too good to last.

Why the big jester grin, JJ? We have all known about the commentary on these photos and known of their existence, like, forever. It was the photos we couldn't snag--but have all wanted to--because they'd been removed from the site. Pgal was smart enough to find a way to grab them.

[J. J. in Phila]

The lot was graveled, as can be seen in the photos. It would have difficult to leave footprints.

[2-B]

JJ, I've snipped and bolded the post I resurrected this thread with for you to consider with regard to your comment about gravel:



Tomkat's one photo of the corner of the SOS lot on 4/17, if you hit the (+) magnifier on your computer and slide the photo over to get the best view of the lot possible, shows enough of the lot to indicate that most of the gravel in the lot appears to remain at the outskirts, while the lot itself appears to be largely dirt.

[snip]

The lot appears to be one that was once covered by gravel that has largely been lost to attrition, leaving a dirt surface below exposed. IOW, the Bloodhound should have had no problem trailing on this particular surface. Given the surface and the environmental conditions, Dixon's "no trail" is significant.

[2-B]

About the gravel, JJ:

Even your own photos show significant attrition of gravel, a lot of dirt, mud, tire tracks, etc. in the parking lot. You were there. You saw the situation with your own eyes.

Now, your photos were taken this summer, as I understand it. We have no way of knowing how many times that lot has been re-graveled between April 17, 2005 and now. It could have been re-graveled in the spring or early summer for all we know.

The great thing about the photos from tomkat, and why I resurrected this thread, is that his photos from the lot show the gravel/dirt situation as it existed on the morning of April 17, 2005.

[Saunterer]

Doesn't add up either way, if they hadn't yet arrived at 11-11:15 and this was the lot prior to. Only other way would be if they arrived earlier. IIRC, DetZ mentioned something about the dogs having a tough time due to 'dew' or 'frost' or something that gave some indication of moisture, but that didn't coincide with something else I read somewhere about the dogs arriving sometime around noon-ish? If that is the case, they certainly didn't go out of their way to preserve any evidence, it seems.


Quite some time ago I found a church that was a few blocks away when I was sleuthing around for the possibility someone in one of the 'programs' such as AA or NA met there at noon, looking at the possibility of a connection to the drug case. Too far away to think anyone would be parking in that lot for church, IMO.
JMOWTF? You know I absolutely loved the bugs-on-the-hood stuff!! But I've been unable to find any logic in your ramblings ever since. And I know I'm not alone.

[2-B]

In December, a year and a half later, it was mud, mud and more mud. Seriously, I thought we were in the wrong lot, because the gravel was missing from anywhere cars drove or parked. Someone here on board, for a very short period of time, showed a photo of the lot and how muddy it became, but of course, that was immediately pulled off the board.
JMO

Well, that's my point, and a good reminder about your trip there. Even JJ's photos show mud. But if you've ever lived on a gravel lane or had a gravel drive, you know that attrition is an on-going thing. Whatever JJ saw in the summer of '09 is not the condition the lot was in when Ray disappeared (and even his photos showed plenty of tire marks in the mud).

Tomkat's photos are the definitive ones, the real deal, for judging lot conditions.

[Saunterer]

Some of you want to argue over dirt and stone; that dogs do this and that, or maybe not. Go there if you want. But understand there's a lot of concerned people who just shrug their heads.

[2-B]

Some of you want to argue over dirt and stone; that dogs do this and that, or maybe not. Go there if you want. But understand there's a lot of concerned people who just shrug their heads.

Well, Saunterer, I'd say this to you.

First, I did not resurrect this thread to argue anything about anything. I resurrected it because of what tomkat's photos confirmed, and that was an issue which had not previously been resolved, the status of the lot surface at the time Ray Gricar disappeared.

Second, I myself have been quite clear-headed regarding exactly what the scent evidence in this case means for a very long time, subject to change only if the privately held dog handlers' logs says something different than what has been given to us publicly.

What I understand clearly (and listen up, JJ) is that the dogs are the best witnesses we have in Lewisburg. I believe their testimony. I believe it because there is empirical data to show me I should believe it. And their testimony conflicts with the testimony of far less reliable witnesses, which both JJ and apparently some of the investigators have placed their faith in. And there's empirical data to show me I should not place my faith in those less reliable witnesses.

Third, I for one don't much care if there are "a lot of concerned people who just shrug their heads." I'm guessing they would largely do the same if faced with discussions regarding any other detailed scientific issue they did not fully understand. Most people do not understand scent theory--including most investigators. But they're familiar with eyewitness identification. It's easy to go with the familiar, even if it's the less trustworthy.

Let them shake their heads. I believe the dogs have the key to a big part of the mystery of Ray Gricar's disappearance. If someone out there is willing to grab on to that and listen, good. If not, fine. If not, well, we've been spinning wheels for four and a half years now.

Even TG misunderstood the point of this kind of discussion, thinking it was a waste of time because nothing could be done differently with regard to the scenting after the fact. That's not the point.

I'll skip my last point, believing that discretion is the better part of valor.

[gstickley]

Some of you want to argue over dirt and stone; that dogs do this and that, or maybe not. Go there if you want. But understand there's a lot of concerned people who just shrug their heads.

Why don't you ask the concerned people to quit shrugging their heads & log onto the board??? They may have some ideas that haven't occurred to the rest of us mental defectives . . . I'm sure we idiots would be very glad to hear from them.

[J. J. in Phila]

Boy, 2-B, now you are complaining about emoticons. :rolleyes:

We should have known it was too good to last.

Why the big jester grin, JJ? We have all known about the commentary on these photos and known of their existence, like, forever. It was the photos we couldn't snag--but have all wanted to--because they'd been removed from the site. Pgal was smart enough to find a way to grab them.


They are good photos, but they don't tell us too much more. The Mini was clean, like TG said it was. The lot appears to have gravel in it.

The commentary on them was out there since April 05; I was referring to Saunterer's comment with the grin.

[2-B]

Why don't you ask the concerned people to quit shrugging their heads & log onto the board??? They may have some ideas that haven't occurred to the rest of us mental defectives . . . I'm sure we idiots would be very glad to hear from them.

Good suggestion, GS.

If that doesn't suit them, I have this question perhaps Saunterer and company can answer: what kinds of discussion, precisely, did they expect they might find on true crime board?

There may be discussions of dirt and stone on this thread, but I am guessing you could go to any of the various boards at In Session and find arguments over/conversation about fingerprints; hairs; fibers; DNA; cubbyholes in walls; this, that, and everything else under the sun related to some forensic issue connected to whatever particular case is under the microscope on that particular board. That's been true on whatever true crime message board I've been a part of over the years.

I think they're still discussing the pineapple in the JBR case, lol.

Ya think it's because people interested in forensics are drawn to true crime cases?

[2-B]

Boy, 2-B, now you are complaining about emoticons. :rolleyes:

I believe I asked, "Why the big jester grin?" I don't remember saying anything like, "How dare you use that big jester grin!"

They are good photos, but they don't tell us too much more. The Mini was clean, like TG said it was. The lot appears to have gravel in it.

The commentary on them was out there since April 05; I was referring to Saunterer's comment with the grin.

The photos tell us a great deal about the condition of the lot on the morning after the Mini Cooper was found. There's gravel on the perimeter, but not a great deal of gravel once you move away from the perimeter, which is exactly what one typically finds on a lane, driveway, or parking lot that hasn't been re-graveled in a while. One of the questions I always had was whether the lot had been re-graveled that spring before RG's disappearance, and it's clear from the photos that hadn't taken place.

As for the grin referring to S.'s comment, pretty hard to tell when the grin appeared following your remark about the commentary being out there since 2005. Syntax issues . . .

[Politigal]

I got the impression that KA's recollections were of the goings on at the PSP barracks in Montandon, not the SoS area. And I don't necessarily hold her to either perfect information or perfect recall.

Her easiest route to and from the barracks would be to use PA-147 and I-80. But it's inconceivable to me that she would not have visited the SoS area at some point (though she made no reference to it).

In the photos there appears to be no LE presence and nothing to prevent the public from parking in the lot where the Mini was found. Wouldn't it occur to LE (and maybe also KA) that it might be a good idea to protect that area until that part of the investigation was done done ... until the sniffer dog came through?

It's inconceivable to me that Steve Sloane met with the profiler at Milton but didn't drive by the Street of Shops area where the car was found. Because several days later he talks about he & Ed Walker (or some other mutual friend) making making a trip there to see what it looked like.

[J. J. in Phila]

About the gravel, JJ:

Even your own photos show significant attrition of gravel, a lot of dirt, mud, tire tracks, etc. in the parking lot. You were there. You saw the situation with your own eyes.

Now, your photos were taken this summer, as I understand it. We have no way of knowing how many times that lot has been re-graveled between April 17, 2005 and now. It could have been re-graveled in the spring or early summer for all we know.

The great thing about the photos from tomkat, and why I resurrected this thread, is that his photos from the lot show the gravel/dirt situation as it existed on the morning of April 17, 2005.

It shows the condition of the neighboring lot quite well, bot not the lot where the Mini was found.

Now, that said, we knew that it was dirt covered by gravel. I'll grant you that there are no puddles and the lot isn't mud. It still really doesn't add anything to the equation.

[2-B]

It still really doesn't add anything to the equation.

Not for you, I guess.

[J. J. in Phila]

Not for you, I guess.


Nor for anyone else. If it was 24 hours earlier, it might.

It is a lot like the rest of the questions about the area.

Could RFG have tossed the laptop? Sure. Does that prove he did? No.

Could the dogs have followed his scent for about 20 yards within the parking area? Yes. Does that prove he got into another car? No.

It eliminates some of the wilder conspiracy theories here, but they were weak in the first place.

A dirt and gravel lot, on a dry day. Not soft enough ground to leave clear footprints.

[2-B]

Nor for anyone else. If it was 24 hours earlier, it might.


How do you, Oh Lord High Gricar Guy, suppose to know what "anyone else" knows?

And what does 24 hours earlier have to do with anything?

[J. J. in Phila]

How do you, Oh Lord High Gricar Guy, suppose to know what "anyone else" knows?


Taking a photo of the lot after the car was moved doesn't tell us anything.



And what does 24 hours earlier have to do with anything?

The photo would have been of the lot on the morning of 4/16/05. That could tell us much.

[2-B]

Taking a photo of the lot after the car was moved doesn't tell us anything.

That doesn't answer my question regarding your statement that the photo doesn't add anything to the equation for ANYONE else. It doesn't add anything for YOU. You're clearly looking at one particular angle, and on that point, it adds nothing for YOU.

I'm looking at it from another angle.


The photo would have been of the lot on the morning of 4/16/05. That could tell us much.

Evidence to me that you are thinking only along one particular line of thought.

[J. J. in Phila]

Continue on your tangent, then. It doesn't anything to the real question at hand.

The car photo did confirm that the car was clean.

[2-B]

Continue on your tangent, then. It doesn't anything to the real question at hand.

The car photo did confirm that the car was clean.

Since you are not inside my brain (thank the Good Lord), you have no clue whether my thinking is a "tangent," JJ.

And since this thread is titled "The Canines," any thinking you're doing about the lot on the morning of 4/16 is "the tangent" with regard to this particular thread.

The dogs didn't arrive until mid-day on 4/17, so your desire to see a photo of the lot the previous day is clearly veering off in some direction other than the intent of this thread.

[2-B]

Meanwhile, back on the actual focus of this thread, I found a video which may be helpful in terms of putting Chief Dixon's comments into context for those who have never watched a trailing dog work.

Disclaimer: this post and video contain discussion of forensic issues related to scent theory. Anyone coming to these boards puzzled by why forensic issues might be discussed may choose to use the ignore button or find a board about gardening, music, politics, or something more to their liking.

On multiple occasions, Chief Dixon was quoted as saying that the dogs picked up no trail in the SOS lot. It's unlikely he pulled this phrase out of thin air, much more likely he got this phrase from the dog handler(s).

If you take the time to watch this training video of search and rescue trailing Bloodhound Little Anne, you'll notice two important things:

1. She shifts her focus between the ground and the air frequently, working both, which is the hallmark of a trailing dog rather than a tracker. JJ, and to a less emphatic degree, BW, have both confused tracking and trailing. A trailing dog does not work footstep-to-footstep in disturbed vegetation.

2. (And most important in terms of Dixon's statements): She is almost constantly moving forward as she works the ground and the air, showing that she is on a trail.

Given all the statements we have on the scent work done at the SOS lot, I believe that forward movement was missing:

the failure of trail-sniffing dogs to follow a scent away from his car
April 23, 2005

http://www.citizen-journal.net/gmhome/archives/00000156.htm

If Gricar had walked from the lot to the SOS or from the SOS to the lot, the Bloodhound would have established a track with the same kind of forward movement we see from Little Anne in the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmdUYhDqA8

[J. J. in Phila]

Meanwhile, back on the actual focus of this thread, I found a video which may be helpful in terms of putting Chief Dixon's comments into context for those who have never watched a trailing dog work.

Disclaimer: this post and video contain discussion of forensic issues related to scent theory. Anyone coming to these boards puzzled by why forensic issues might be discussed may choose to use the ignore button or find a board about gardening, music, politics, or something more to their liking.

On multiple occasions, Chief Dixon was quoted as saying that the dogs picked up no trail in the SOS lot. It's unlikely he pulled this phrase out of thin air, much more likely he got this phrase from the dog handler(s).

If you take the time to watch this training video of search and rescue trailing Bloodhound Little Anne, you'll notice two important things:

1. She shifts her focus between the ground and the air frequently, working both, which is the hallmark of a trailing dog rather than a tracker. JJ, and to a less emphatic degree, BW, have both confused tracking and trailing. A trailing dog does not work footstep-to-footstep in disturbed vegetation.

2. (And most important in terms of Dixon's statements): She is almost constantly moving forward as she works the ground and the air, showing that she is on a trail.

Given all the statements we have on the scent work done at the SOS lot, I believe that forward movement was missing:

the failure of trail-sniffing dogs to follow a scent away from his car
April 23, 2005

http://www.citizen-journal.net/gmhome/archives/00000156.htm

If Gricar had walked from the lot to the SOS or from the SOS to the lot, the Bloodhound would have established a track with the same kind of forward movement we see from Little Anne in the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HmdUYhDqA8

Actually, the quote from Dixon was: ""The handler said the way the dog acted, it could have indicated [Gricar] got into another car."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05112/492590-85.stm#ixzz0MQYNOmMd

Now, if there was no trail, there would be no way for the dog to act that way.

[2-B]

Actually, the quote from Dixon was: ""The handler said the way the dog acted, it could have indicated [Gricar] got into another car."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05112/492590-85.stm#ixzz0MQYNOmMd

Now, if there was no trail, there would be no way for the dog to act that way.

What do you mean "the" quote from Dixon, JJ? You act as if Dixon made only a single statement to one media outlet (the Post-Gazette) regarding the dogs. That's just silly.

Try this:

4/22/05
Bellefonte Police Chief Duane Dixon said a bloodhound brought to the antiques store's parking lot in Lewisburg picked up no trail.

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patrio...02697299950.xml

and this:

4/19/05
Bloodhounds and tracking dogs were also sent out, but they did not pick up on anything, Dixon said.


http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2005/04/04-19-05tdc/04-19-05dnews-04.asp

Now try actually watching the video of Little Anne at work, JJ.

See the forward movement vs. the ground scenting and air scenting?
The "no trail" likely means that while the dog may have picked up some ground scent or air scent, there was no forward movement indicating a trail.

How else would you explain the "no trail" phrase Dixon uses or this description of the scent work at the SOS lot?

April 23, 2005
the failure of trail-sniffing dogs to follow a scent away from his car

http://www.citizen-journal.net/gmhome/archives/00000156.htm

[J. J. in Phila]

The first link you posted was dead. The second is a paraphase. The third is a blog entry that doesn't even mention Dixon or cite a story. :rolleyes:

[2-B]

The first link you posted was dead. The second is a paraphase. The third is a blog entry that doesn't even mention Dixon or cite a story. :rolleyes:

Can't help it if links are dead after 4 1/2 years, JJ. Try this one and see if the reprint is still available there.

http://www.usenetpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=226085

Regardless of whether links are available or whether Dixon is being paraphrased, Dixon said that the Bloodhound brought to the SOS lot PICKED UP NO TRAIL. Everything I gave you, including the direct quote from Dixon, is consistent with that.

Now, the real question here is whether you watched the video I provided. Can you see the difference between the scenting action and the forward movement action?

If there had been the kind of forward movement you can see Little Anne making, Dixon would not have been told that the Bloodhound picked up no trail. I've seen Bloodhounds working a trail where their forward movement was so fast their handlers could barely keep up with them, or in some cases, couldn't keep up with them.

[J. J. in Phila]

Another dead link, and we have Dixon's quote, which I think was within a week of the dog being brought in.

[gstickley]

(snip)

Dixon said that the Bloodhound brought to the SOS lot PICKED UP NO TRAIL.

(snip)
If there had been the kind of forward movement you can see Little Anne making, Dixon would not have been told that the Bloodhound picked up no trail.

I know you know about dogs, 2-B. I don't, & apparently others don't either.

But . . . if the dog didn't pick up a trail leading away from the vehicle, how can it still be argued that RG drove the vehicle to Lewisburg, that RG was seen outside the SOS, that RG was seen inside the SOS?

[J. J. in Phila]

I know you know about dogs, 2-B. I don't, & apparently others don't either.

But . . . if the dog didn't pick up a trail leading away from the vehicle, how can it still be argued that RG drove the vehicle to Lewisburg, that RG was seen outside the SOS, that RG was seen inside the SOS?

Actually, as has been pointed out, dogs do give false negatives, being unable to track on certain days, while performing fantastically on others, thike Scott Peterson case.

The dog handler said that is what the dog detected.

I guess it's now, "The Vast BPD, CDT, Dog Handler (& Dog) Conspiracy, and half of Centre County Conspiracy." :rolleyes:

[2-B]

I know you know about dogs, 2-B. I don't, & apparently others don't either.

But . . . if the dog didn't pick up a trail leading away from the vehicle, how can it still be argued that RG drove the vehicle to Lewisburg, that RG was seen outside the SOS, that RG was seen inside the SOS?

What I think happened is pretty clear, at least based on publicly available evidence:

1) We have witnesses in Lewisburg who were questioned/handled using protocols that did not follow the DOJ guidelines for dealing with witnesses. By the time of the Michigan sighting at the end of May, DZ did ask for guidance and altered some of the protocol to better conform with DOJ protocols. However, it was too late for the Lewisburg witnesses at that point. At least one of the witnesses in Lewisburg, perhaps more, could respond only to details provided, according to TG. Eyewitness identification in missing persons' cases is notoriously far less accurate than in criminal suspect identifications, and in criminal suspect identifications in real world application, at best the rate of accurate identification is 44%. This puts the accuracy rate of criminal suspect ID's below the flip of a coin and the accuracy rate of MP ID's way below that.

2) We have a law enforcement trained, certified and handled Bloodhound on the scene at the SOS lot and from what we've been led to believe also taken to other locations in Lewisburg. The dog picked up no trail in the lot according to Dixon and picked up scent only in the immediate vicinity of where RG's car had been parked. We've not heard that scent was identified in any locations elsewhere, not by the river, the SOS, or anywhere else in Lewisburg. Nothing about the conditions that I can see would have made it challenging for an LE certified Bloodhound to work that area 48 hours after Gricar allegedly arrived in Lewisburg. (Compare to the training map I posted of Bloodhound Kali's 51-hour trail in high winds after flooding rains, for example, or to the FBI's studies on scent durability.) Empirical data from testing seasoned Bloodhounds with seasoned handlers in a heavily contaminated urban area showed a 96% accuracy rate for the Bloodhounds. IMO, the scent the hound picked up in the lot was there either because Gricar arrived in the Mini, got out of his car, got into another car, but did not go anywhere else in Lewisburg OR the hound picked up the scent in the lot because of the explanation Seitz gave regarding transference from a vehicle to surrounding areas--an explanation absolutely consistent with everything the FBI scent unit has to say about scent transference, consistent with the science of scent theory, and consistent with common sense.

3) Clearly JJ gives more weight to the less reliable identifications made by unreliable eyewitnesses handled by less than reliable protocols (see Wells, et all, and the DOJ guidelines) than to the more reliable testimony of the more empirically proven identifications of the Bloodhound. It would appear the BPD has made the same "weighting" decisions. If SPM does one thing, I hope it will be to re-examine the decision to weight the witness identifications as more credible than the dog's, since there is no way the Bloodhound can be right and the witnesses can also be right, assuming the Bloodhound was taken to locations the witnesses said they saw Ray Gricar, such as the SOS.

Keeping in mind that law enforcement routinely uses Bloodhounds to determine whether sightings are accurate, I find it difficult to understand why the Bloodhound in this case has been discounted in favor of the witness testimony.

Maybe, GS, if there had been 8-10 (possibly more!!!) Bloodhounds brought to the scene, somebody would have paid more attention!!!

[2-B]

Actually, as has been pointed out, dogs do give false negatives, being unable to track on certain days, while performing fantastically on others, thike Scott Peterson case.


This is like, what, the 37gazillionth time you've brought up poor Merlin, who did not perform badly in the Peterson case but WAS PULLED OFF THE TRAIL BY A DECISION OF NON-DOG HANDLER LAW ENFORCEMENT when his own handler wanted to keep working him.

Give it up, JJ. Merlin ran an incredibly long drop-trail after having only practiced drop trailing twice before, IIRC. He'd never even run an actual drop trail, and he RAN a perfect one. The area you keep saying he couldn't do he was NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

Can't you ever stop lying about Merlin? Dog ought to bite you for that.

[gritrescri]

bookmarked and b back l8er,i need more info, :-)

__________________

Nouveau taux a pret 0 conditions 2010 | (http://pretataux0.com/)Le eco pret a taux 0 credit zero travaux | (http://pretataux0.com/)Nouveau pret a taux 0 (http://pretataux0.com/)

[J. J. in Phila]

This is like, what, the 37gazillionth time you've brought up poor Merlin, who did not perform badly in the Peterson case but WAS PULLED OFF THE TRAIL BY A DECISION OF NON-DOG HANDLER LAW ENFORCEMENT when his own handler wanted to keep working him.

Give it up, JJ. Merlin ran an incredibly long drop-trail after having only practiced drop trailing twice before, IIRC. He'd never even run an actual drop trail, and he RAN a perfect one. The area you keep saying he couldn't do he was NOT ALLOWED TO DO.

Can't you ever stop lying about Merlin? Dog ought to bite you for that.

Please, 2-B, the first time the dog went out, it didn't take LE in the direction of the warehouse or ocean, both west. For whatever reason, the dog, Merlin, didn't follow the trail that day.

What happened to Merlin that day? I don't know and Merlin isn't talking.

Next time out, Merlin was able to follow the scent for tens of miles, and did a fantastic job. Merlin was good, but not perfect.

[2-B]

Please, 2-B, the first time the dog went out, it didn't take LE in the direction of the warehouse or ocean, both west. For whatever reason, the dog, Merlin, didn't follow the trail that day.

What happened to Merlin that day? I don't know and Merlin isn't talking.

Same inaccurate post you put up every time, JJ. What you keep posting does not accurately reflect what happened. I've explained to you a gazillion times what occurred, and you keep willfully misrepresenting it.

You don't seem to understand that trailing dogs can reach spots in a trail that are "puzzles" they have to work through. Merlin was not allowed to work through a given puzzle. He was pulled off before he could complete the puzzle.

Who pulled him off? NOT his handler. His handler wanted to keep working him. You've lied about that in the past, too. You've said she reported that Merlin was too tired to keep working, but that directly contradicts her testimony that she had multiple strategies she wanted to use to allow him to work out the puzzle. She was told she had to pull him off by LE who were not dog handlers and who--like you--did not understand the puzzle part of the trail that Merlin had encountered.

The next time you say, "For whatever reason, the dog, Merlin, didn't follow the trail that day," recognize that you are violating TOS by continuing to post what you know to be false and misleading information.

I've had it up to here with you posting this time after time after time when you've been given the correct and true information taken directly from the handler's sworn testimony.

You cannot discredit the Bloodhound at the SOS lot by lying about Merlin in the Peterson case! :rolleyes:

[J. J. in Phila]

Same inaccurate post you put up every time, JJ. What you keep posting does not accurately reflect what happened. I've explained to you a gazillion times what occurred, and you keep willfully misrepresenting it.

You don't seem to understand that trailing dogs can reach spots in a trail that are "puzzles" they have to work through. Merlin was not allowed to work through a given puzzle. He was pulled off before he could complete the puzzle.

Who pulled him off? NOT his handler. His handler wanted to keep working him. You've lied about that in the past, too. You've said she reported that Merlin was too tired to keep working, but that directly contradicts her testimony that she had multiple strategies she wanted to use to allow him to work out the puzzle. She was told she had to pull him off by LE who were not dog handlers and who--like you--did not understand the puzzle part of the trail that Merlin had encountered.

The next time you say, "For whatever reason, the dog, Merlin, didn't follow the trail that day," recognize that you are violating TOS by continuing to post what you know to be false and misleading information.

I've had it up to here with you posting this time after time after time when you've been given the correct and true information taken directly from the handler's sworn testimony.

You cannot discredit the Bloodhound at the SOS lot by lying about Merlin in the Peterson case! :rolleyes:

The dog took them in a different direction from the warehouse that morning.

Here:

Valentin, a prosecution witness, said she conducted her first two searches on Dec. 26, two days after Laci went missing, and another on Feb. 3. The first search resulted in a dead end at a Gallo wine facility, but the second led Merlin and Valentin through Modesto all the way to Highway 580.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040225/ai_n14569745/

Merlin isn't talking about about his bad day. 2-B conveniently forgot about it.

[2-B]

The dog took them in a different direction from the warehouse that morning.

Here:

Valentin, a prosecution witness, said she conducted her first two searches on Dec. 26, two days after Laci went missing, and another on Feb. 3. The first search resulted in a dead end at a Gallo wine facility, but the second led Merlin and Valentin through Modesto all the way to Highway 580.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040225/ai_n14569745/

Merlin isn't talking about about his bad day. 2-B conveniently forgot about it.


I didn't "conveniently forget" anything, JJ. Unlike you, I'm not relying on a short and inaccurate media report for my understanding of what happened with Merlin. I'm relying on having read and digested, multiple times, the actual sworn testimony of Merlin's handler, combined with my personal knowledge of canine behavior.

The article is inaccurate. There was not a "dead end" at the Gallo facility, as I have described to you many times. In addition to what I have previously told you, Merlin's handler told LE her dog was showing signs at Gallo that he was following a vehicle trail, not a foot trail.

Strike how many gazillion at discrediting Merlin??

[J. J. in Phila]

I didn't "conveniently forget" anything, JJ. Unlike you, I'm not relying on a short and inaccurate media report for my understanding of what happened with Merlin. I'm relying on having read and digested, multiple times, the actual sworn testimony of Merlin's handler, combined with my personal knowledge of canine behavior.

The article is inaccurate. There was not a "dead end" at the Gallo facility, as I have described to you many times. In addition to what I have previously told you, Merlin's handler told LE her dog was showing signs at Gallo that he was following a vehicle trail, not a foot trail.

Strike how many gazillion at discrediting Merlin??

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that the first time Merlin went out, for some reason, could not follow the trail.

Why not? You'll have ask Merlin.

[2-B]

I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that the first time Merlin went out, for some reason, could not follow the trail.

Why not? You'll have ask Merlin.

All I have to do is read and understand his handler's sworn testimony. She's the one who could "ask Merlin," as it were. Everyone who has ever handled a dog knows how to read his/her dog. She read Merlin, and according to what she read, he was on a vehicle trail, not a foot trail, and he was working through a puzzle at that point. LE decided they didn't have the manpower available to close down the area at that time and pulled him off the trail.

Meanwhile, if you had read and understood the entirety of her sworn testimony, the part that took place on the day after the article you put up referred to, you'd understand that Merlin's handler under re-direct had no problem showing that Merlin "connected all the dots" of the multiple trails he was put on.

Your assumption that he was not able to follow the trail is inaccurate. Sounds more like you're the clueless Peterson defense lawyer who questioned Merlin's handler, the one who couldn't tell the difference between tracking and trailing or between a harness and a leash.

Therefore, JJ, for the last time I hope, let me say that you cannot undermine the credibility of the Bloodhound at the Gricar Lewisburg site by continuing to lie about Merlin.

Oh, and one other thing--that long drop trail Merlin ran, despite never having actually run an official drop trail? That took place a full ten days after Laci went missing, and of course was run where heavy vehicle traffic had passed for those ten days. So much for your 48-hour, masked by exhaust fumes in the tiny little SOS lot theory!

[sherrijean981]

I checked the hours of operation as well and thought 8 a.m. was an odd opening for Sunday compared to the other days of the week, unless there's some connection to getting the church crowd in before services! I'd forgotten about the church being nearby and the possibility church goers might be using the other lot. That does happen often, generally when businesses are closed at that hour, though. Wonder if Bennett let church goers park in the farther lot while reserving the closer one for SOS patrons on Sunday a.m.?

Still doesn't clarify whether the dogs had yet arrived when the photo was snapped. If the time stamp on freerepublic is correct, it wouldn't appear they had.


Sunday is Flea Market day off Rt 15 between Lewisburg and Milton and they start early and end in the aftertoon. Probably SOS and Rolling Mills Antiques try to catch the early birds taking a short cut on Water St to the flea market from Rt 45. JMO

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, for some reason, the first day, Merlin couldn't follow the trail from the house to the warehouse. He followed the trail to a winery. Sorry, that is what the handler said. I've read several accounts and they agree.

Some time later, Merlin was able to follow the scent from the warehouse to the bay, a much greater distance.

Why is that? Merlin, the dog, isn't talking.

I thought the second time out, Merlin was fantastic. He failed the first time, for some unknown reason. I don't know why you have have a problem with that?

[2-B]

2-B, for some reason, the first day, Merlin couldn't follow the trail from the house to the warehouse. He followed the trail to a winery. Sorry, that is what the handler said.

[bolding mine]

No, that is not accurate. As I said in an earlier post, Merlin's handler under re-direct had no problem showing that Merlin "connected all the dots" of the multiple trails he was put on.


I've read several accounts and they agree.

Some time later, Merlin was able to follow the scent from the warehouse to the bay, a much greater distance.

Why is that? Merlin, the dog, isn't talking.

I thought the second time out, Merlin was fantastic. He failed the first time, for some unknown reason. I don't know why you have have a problem with that?

JJ.

You may have read "several accounts," but you could not have

1) read the entire sworn testimony AND
2) understood what was being testified to AND
3) continue to post what you post.

Under re-direct, Merlin's handler made it quite clear that Merlin had not "failed" on the earlier trails.

I'm aware that the one "account" you posted a link to gave a brief summary of only one day of the testimony and did not cover the parts of the testimony demonstrating the inaccuracies in what you are posting. It's helpful to have the entire picture and the technical background to form a full understanding before making a value judgment. Sorry, but you've apparently come up short on the first and I know you lack the second.

What I "have a problem" with is your misrepresentation of handler testimony and of Merlin's work in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Bloodhound at the SOS site.

[J. J. in Phila]

2-B, you post a lot about this, but you don't actually say anything. Merlin, first time out, followed the scent in a different direction from the warehouse. Now, I don't that "discredits" him, but merely states fact.

[2-B]

2-B, you post a lot about this, but you don't actually say anything. Merlin, first time out, followed the scent in a different direction from the warehouse. Now, I don't that "discredits" him, but merely states fact.


JJ's interpretation of a couple of media "accounts" which clearly don't cover or accurately reflect the entirety of the sworn testimony

OR


the actual sworn testimony?


Which to choose? Which to choose?

[Slaniaxy73]

if this is the ORIGINAL SIMS the 1st SIMS Game then using ALCOHOL and the safedisk profile it should make a good copy with no extra fiddling

or use CLONE CD and use the safedisk profile

[J. J. in Phila]

JJ's interpretation of a couple of media "accounts" which clearly don't cover or accurately reflect the entirety of the sworn testimony

OR


the actual sworn testimony?


Which to choose? Which to choose?

I believe the press accounts of the trial more than I believe your claim about the trial.

Do you have a link to a transcript?