Cadaver dogs to search for victims of Wayne Gacy (going back to the 70's)

by Guest 12.01.13 22:15

So 32 years after his conviction and 18 years after he was executed, cadaver dogs being used to find more of his victims.........

[snipped]

Gacy Victim Search: Chicago Housing Complex Warrant Approved By County Prosecutors

Bilecki said that investigators would bring in high-tech thermal imaging devices that detect that detect underground anomalies indicating something may have been buried. At the same time, searchers would bore holes in the ground and have FBI cadaver dogs sniff the holes' openings for the scent of human remains.

"It should initially be a pretty non-invasive (search)," said Bilecki, adding that the search could become much more involved if the initial search indicates any sign of human remains.

A search would be the latest twist in one of the most terrifying crime sprees in American history, one that ended when investigators discovered 29 bodies buried in the crawlspace of Gacy's Chicago-area home and yard in the 1970s. Gacy, who was arrested in 1978, convicted in 1980 and executed in 1994, has been the subject of countless articles and books, as well as at least one movie.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/gacy-victim-search-chicag_n_2463947.html

by margaret 14.01.13 19:38

How very unhelpful. spin

by sonic72 15.01.13 0:36

I saw a video on 9/11 where the rescuers said the dogs were one of the most crucial tools during the aftermath, when trying to find survivors or remains.

Obviously used by customs, military, and other rescue/recovery situations.

Their use is widespread, and vital to certain fields of work.

Their necessity, and ability cannot be denied.

What the McCann's said about the dogs is complete and utter rubbish. Coming from 2 supposed intelligent people, I find their comments about the dogs to be beyond bizarre.

Either they don't want to accept she is dead, or they deliberately want to discredit the dogs.

by Smokeandmirrors 15.01.13 6:32

Gerry claims they're unreliable when scientifically tested. He claims that success rates in the high 90%'s are unreliable then? Google is a goldmine for gems relating to this. Unfortunately, the Mc's are the sought of people that think they can make statements in an offhand and generally sweeping way, and the whole world will just accept it without question. This will be their downfall IMO. They've said that many contradictions and nonsensical statements, not even Carter Rucks finest can spin it. It's all there on YouTube and they can't blame it on misquotation!

by aiyoyo 15.01.13 14:42

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Gerry claims they're unreliable when scientifically tested. He claims that success rates in the high 90%'s are unreliable then? Google is a goldmine for gems relating to this. Unfortunately, the Mc's are the sought of people that think they can make statements in an offhand and generally sweeping way, and the whole world will just accept it without question. This will be their downfall IMO. They've said that many contradictions and nonsensical statements, not even Carter Rucks finest can spin it. It's all there on YouTube and they can't blame it on misquotation!

That general sweeping statement was a self=defence mechanism, uttered to spin the public.
I would like to see him say that in Court and be challenged. He wont stand a chance under scrutiny.

by DIBarlow 15.01.13 16:07

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Gerry claims they're unreliable when scientifically tested. He claims that success rates in the high 90%'s are unreliable then? Google is a goldmine for gems relating to this. Unfortunately, the Mc's are the sought of people that think they can make statements in an offhand and generally sweeping way, and the whole world will just accept it without question. This will be their downfall IMO. They've said that many contradictions and nonsensical statements, not even Carter Rucks finest can spin it. It's all there on YouTube and they can't blame it on misquotation!

Right from the start their story was simply "A big boy did it and ran away".

No evidence of abduction and no proof of any intruder having been in their apartment.

And yet, seemingly intelligent people accepted their word apparently without question.

Highly irregular and most odd.

by Smokeandmirrors 15.01.13 16:51

DIBarlow wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Gerry claims they're unreliable when scientifically tested. He claims that success rates in the high 90%'s are unreliable then? Google is a goldmine for gems relating to this. Unfortunately, the Mc's are the sought of people that think they can make statements in an offhand and generally sweeping way, and the whole world will just accept it without question. This will be their downfall IMO. They've said that many contradictions and nonsensical statements, not even Carter Rucks finest can spin it. It's all there on YouTube and they can't blame it on misquotation!
Right from the start their story was simply "A big boy did it and ran away".

No evidence of abduction and no proof of any intruder having been in their apartment.

And yet, seemingly intelligent people accepted their word apparently without question.

Highly irregular and most odd.

Seemingly being the operative word!!

by **PeterMac** 15.01.13 16:52

sonic72 wrote:
Either they don't want to accept she is dead, or they deliberately want to discredit the dogs.

The HAVE to discredit the dogs, otherwise their story falls apart even to them.
It has never stood up for anyone else.
Not a single professional person who has visited the scene, or interviewed witnesses or the suspects, or has done any proper investigation
of any type supports the abduction theory / hypothesis.
It just doesn't work.

There is no point of entry
There is no point of exit
There are no forensic traces
And there simply isn't time between 9:07 pm and 9:11 pm to sedate three children, pick one, exit, and march round the car park to the corner and cross the street.
.

by Nina 15.01.13 17:32

PeterMac wrote:
sonic72 wrote:
Either they don't want to accept she is dead, or they deliberately want to discredit the dogs.
The HAVE to discredit the dogs, otherwise their story falls apart even to them.
It has never stood up for anyone else.
Not a single professional person who has visited the scene, or interviewed witnesses or the suspects, or has done any proper investigation
of any type supports the abduction theory / hypothesis.
It just doesn't work.

There is no point of entry
There is no point of exit
There are no forensic traces
And there simply isn't time between 9:07 pm and 9:11 pm to sedate three children, pick one, exit, and march round the car park to the corner and cross the street.
.

Yet they still walk free.

by Inspectorfrost 15.01.13 19:45

Petermac, what about that Horrocks bloke?

and all the other cracker style denizens of the force
big grin

Gerry Mccann either knows nothing about cadaver dogs and has NOT done any research and/or has been badly advised or he has misleadingly used one random odd study where its claimed, as per his Expresso interview, Sept 07, that the dogs failed two thirds of the time
lol!

On some reflection I would think trying to discredit the validity of cadaver dogs, notwithstanding Kate Mccanns ridiculous writing on them in her book, was a deliberate ploy. I am sure it fooled not one professional and probably a huge chunk of the public who do read discernedly, which makes me wonder
wft