The wind map has been corrected. To show the proper Weather Underground wind data. The weather data used in the original post was for the wrong city and mis-applied. Thank you Sagitta for pointing out my error!
On November 23, 2009, Casey’s defense team filed a motion to modify the courts order in request to the defense’s previous application for a subpoena duces tecum requesting documents from Tim Miller’s Texas Equusearch (TES) concerning the volunteers involved in the search for Caylee in 2008. In particular this motion requests all records for all searchers. Previously the court had ruled that the documents that TES would have to turn over to the defense would be limited to information on those volunteers who searched within a given radius of the location where Caylee’s remains would ultimately be found. This new motion requests a modification to allow the defense copies of information on ALL volunteers involved in the TES searches. The request is backed by the argument that the defense team, has on their own, found two witnesses who claim to have been involved in the TES searches and whose information was not turned over in the previously limited subpoena duces tecum.
The importance here is that the motion to modify is founded on three things: 1. The defense “found” these searchers. 2. These searchers were not in the documents released from TES. 3. The defense argues “…the statements made by TES, to this Court, were inaccurate. There were indeed TES searchers who searched the area where Caylee Anthony’s remains were found…The information most relevant to Miss Anthony’s defense was withheld.”
Those searchers are Joseph Jordan and Laura Buchanan. Let me first state that the argument in support of this modification is on a bit of shaky ground as far I can tell if the defense is trying to show that TES did not turn over documents that showed searches assigned to the Suburban Drive area. Why do I feel this way? Firstly, Laura Buchanan outright states in her statement on page 17 of the linked pdf that “We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own.” This admission raises doubts that Mr. Miller or any recordkeepers assigned to the TES searches would have documentation that this rogue group of searchers had ever been to the area on September 3rd, 2008 in the first place.
Joseph Jordan seems even more “officially detached” from the TES efforts. He was very vocal on both Websleuths and Scaredmonkeys about his own searches associated with S.A.V.E. kaylee and Moms for Justice. Mr. Jordan was interviewed twice by Dana Pretzer, featured in a Fox News article (now removed), an ABC news article, and an interview with Greta Van Susteren (youtube video now removed) about his group’s search efforts. On September 9, 2008 he started a thread on Websleuths in which he was specifically asked if TES was involved in his group’s searches. His response was:
“We have a group that were involved at TES… my team of about 15, most are going to continue with us. We also have some individuals that are off duty law enforcement that will be involved as well. We are trying to gather, and will announce a time and location so we can continue. This will not be so much an organized grid search as TES does, but more about probable areas of interest because of the number of searchers.”
Curiously, Mr. Jordan did not indicate in his response he had been part of the group involved with TES, and seems to specifically delineate between the TES efforts and the efforts of the group to which he assigns himself. The point here being that there seems to be an organized disconnect between the searches Joseph Jordan was involved in, and those of TES. On a Topix thread, member Margaret-TN snatched a previously posted statement Joseph Jordan had made in 2008, on behalf of S.A.V.E. kaylee and Moms for Justice, in which he specifically states “I have expressed to them the importance of getting Texas Equi Search involved.” Again, it is unclear as to whether TES would have any documentation on search efforts Mr. Jordan was involved with.
But setting aside the possibility that neither of these volunteer searchers’ efforts might be documented with TES, let’s look at the claims of Joseph Jordan. I feel that I have adequately addressed the environmental conditions associated with Laura Buchanan’s claims about the search on Suburban Drive on September 3rd, 2008, in my entry entitled Rainfall Analysis for Conditions on September 1st, 2008, which would also more than adequately apply to two days later. As shown in that analysis, Caylee’s remains would have been under approximately 1-3/4 feet of water. Ms. Buchanan’s statements that they walked down the wood fence toward the area where the remains were reduce to a minimum distance of about 40 feet between the last piece of dry land and where Caylee’s remains were positioned.
Let’s now look at Joseph Jordan’s claims. He states on September 1st, 2008, that he and “five to six volunteers” “searched the area by the stockade fence along the south side of Suburban Street”. He states that two dogs were in their search group. One belonged to Danny Ibison and the other to a Panama City Sheriff’s Deputy. On September 2, 2008, the Orlando Sentinel wrote an article on the searches being conducted by TES and specifically mentioned Danny Ibison and his dog Tyler. In this article it states they were searching “a wooded area, less than a mile from the Anthony home”. It does not give more specifics on the location, but from the description of debris found at the location searched, it seems apparent it was NOT at the location where Caylee’s remains were ultimately found:
As the searchers moved down the path, they beat back undergrowth and probed the dirt with sticks. Ibison instructed Tyler to sniff a couple of suspicious items — an abandoned baby stroller and a torn blue tarp, but the dog didn’t smell any signs of decomposition.
The volunteers made their way into an open, muddy field, where they encountered another group that had some across something suspicious behind a rotting log — a trash can with scorch marks. It was deemed unrelated to the search.
But for the sake of argument we will allow that they were traveling down Suburban Drive, that Mr. Jordan was involved in this search, and therefore TES may have records that the defense’s motion will produce. Establishing that the water conditions are the same, we have no description of Danny Ibison, or any searcher with him, attempting to wade (along with their dog) into water. In fact, “an open, muddy field” doesn’t describe the location of Caylee’s remains at all. So, we are left with the closest approach to Caylee’s remains, assuming these searchers were on Suburban Drive, being from the roadside of Suburban. From the topo map and rainfall analysis we see that the closest point the searchers with dogs could have gotten to Caylee’s remain (barring entrance into the water) would have been right at 5 feet. This would have required the searchers to enter the heavy brush and walk down a muddy, slippery incline toward the edge of the water. But let’s assume they did get this close, because it was possible.
It should first be established that at this time it is unclear whether Ibison’s dog Tyler, or the Panama City Sheriff’s Deputy’s dog were “search dogs” or “cadaver dogs” and this is an important differentiation to have established. They are not the same. A search dog is trained to take the scent of a living being and detect that scent. A cadaver dog is trained to pick up the gaseous emissions of a decomposing body. A cadaver dog does not look for the scent of a living person to find the remains of a decomposing body. The two “scent profiles” are totally different. But again, we will assume the two dogs were cadaver dogs instead of search dogs for the sake of argument, and benefit of doubt.
There are many factors that effect the ability of a cadaver dog to pick up the presence of remains. I think one of the easiest to read and follow sources for learning about how cadaver dogs are trained, handled, and the factors that effect their ability to locate can be found in a three part Q&A sessions with Sam Pepenella on ScaredMonkeys.com. It is well worth the read. Mr. Pepenella is one of the founding members of the K9 Forensics Recovery Team and certified trainer in the National Narcotic Detector Dog Association (NNDDA). In the three part Q&A Mr. Pepenella gives several factors that can effect the cadaver dogs’ abilities:
szundi wrote: Hi! What factors in the environment affect the dogs’ ability to smell a cadaver. Thank you. ZOON (owner and breeder of Hungarian Sheepdogs(Puli)
Sam: Heat, rain, cold, time
SunnyinTX wrote: To what depth can the dog find the scent….speaking about at the landfill or buried in the sandy soil…and if the body was wrapped in plastic would that impeded their being able to detect the decomp scent?? Thanks, Sunny
Sam: Sonny, There are many factors effecting what a cadaver K9 can and cannot detect. To what depth: It is not necessarily what depth but what has come to the surface. The gasses rise and that is what the K9’s detect. Often a tree will soak up the nutrients and dispel them in the air. It is not uncommon for the K9’s to “bark up a tree”. Does the plastic effect the chance of detection? Well it can but many of victims have been found in plastic wrap……so …
nikkibnurse wrote: Sam, thank you for being here…
Just wanted to ask..I know that time can be a factor in a hit that a cadaver dog may get…..How much time would have to lapse before the dog wouldn’t hit on remains?Do skeletal remains ever get hits, or do the remains still have to be in decomposition phase? Thank you!Sam: The oldest hit recorded with a K9 is over a thousand years. Mine has hit a hundred year old grave. There are many factors which can dictate how much time laps to where the K9 can smell or not smell.. but that is a very long and detailed question. Environment is important…..
Shell wrote: At what distance can the dogs detect the smell? I remember in the Van Dam case, that area had been searched where they eventually found her remains.
Sam: There are many factors that come into play when asking that question. Wind, dept, proximity all effect on the distance a K9 can detect a body. It is not uncommon forthe dog to be on the up wind side of the “target” and not smell it. Well to find the source, the dog works into the wind to locate what it is looking for. An example, someone farts and pending on where your standing……..do I have to say more.
So we know of just a few factors working against the dogs (if they were cadaver dogs): the body wrapped in plastic, the body submerged in water, the body most likely completely skeletonized, dense foliage to absorb gaseous emissions, an inability to get at the exact location of the body…what about this wind factor? Well, let’s look at the wind conditions in Orlando on September 1, 2008, when these two dogs were supposed to have been on Suburban Drive.
Weather Underground reports an average wind speed of 9 mph in a direction of West-Southwest with maximum winds at 16 mph and gusts to 24 mph. This puts a steady wind of around 9 mph blowing in parallel to the searchers and dogs if they were approaching from the street side of Suburban. This wind would be blowing toward the searchers if they were coming down the fence line.
Valhall.
Related posts:
- The Searchers: Richard Creque, Joseph Jordan, and Danny Ibison
- A Second look at Joseph Jordan
- The Anthony Encycliepedia: Laura Buchanan plays both ends against the middle
- Wind Analysis for September 3, 2008
- Caylee Anthony case: Question concerning Laura Buchanan/TES documents
Click here to join the discussion
