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.

[logicworks]

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."


Thanks for finding the old posts, S1.

IIRC, there was a news article, very early on, where DetZ makes much the same comments as those on board.

I recall as I was reading the news article, the picture to match being created in my mind of what he was describing, and although I can pull up the picture in my mind as easily as if it were yesterday, finding the hard copy is not as easy. Recall is so much easier than my physical files, commonly called 'stacks', some higher than others, LOL.

When I finally made a trip down to the lot to see what the scene actually looked like, and driver pulled into the lot and parked and said 'here we are', I said 'HUH'??

There was trees, vegetation, building, etc. close to where the photo shows the car as having been parked. At the time I was there, 1.5 years after the disappearance, the lot looked just like the photo that another poster put up, which was quickly taken down, of mudpuddles, ruts, dirt, not a lot of gravel.

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

[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.

[logicworks]

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.

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.

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

[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 . . .

[logicworks]

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.)



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?


Thanks for the timing on the photos.

Now it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever as to why the vehicles were in the SOS lot at that time nor does it make any sense why anyone would be sitting in the Mini.

If the headrest was pulled up that high there would be a space in between the seat and the headrest and there isn't that I can see. The gate to the area appears to be directly behind the Mini and it appears to be in a closed position but likely possible to do so after entering that area.

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.

The most important point to establish is whether RG was the last driver, top set on a stack of scents and rafts on the seat. If scented to the scent item first, of course, the dog is going to sift through the pile of scents and find RG's there since he drove the car all the time. That wouldn't prove anything. What needed clarification was who was the last driver, last scent present on the driver's seat.

At the same time, anyone who was near the vehicle before, while vehicle was still in the SOS lot, during and after it was towed should have been in the room when the dog was scented to the seat to insure there was no contamination. The dog would tell them if someone who was present left their scent on the seat by going to that person. Same with the passenger seat. Strange if they went with a swipe and contaminated the seats prior to the dogs arrival.

First thing I would have done after the dog was finished would be to take a piece of tape across the gas and brake petal to pick up any hairs, soil, that might give some indication of the environment the last driver was in prior to. (Example, animal hair different than a dog or cat's possibly indicating a farm area or ashes indicating a possible camping area or someone with a wood stone who spread ashes in lane, common out in the country in the winter, or different soil, or even human hair.) 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.

While someone could wear gloves to hide prints and cover most of the body to cut down on transference, the bottoms of shoes carry a history with them. Vacuuming an area such as driver's side may give a mixture of many things, while taping the gas and brake petal with clear tape, and then turning the tape over to look through the back side microscopically would give the best indication of what particles arrived last.

JMO

[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

[logicworks]

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?





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

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

[logicworks]

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?





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

Yes, thank you! That was the case I was referring to.

[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?