Chandra Levy

[ateamer]

Did anyone catch the uproar created by the media over the last few days after private eyes hired by the Levy family found a bone 25 yards from where Chandra's body was found? The media all but called the police incompetent and D.C. Chief Ramsey all but said the same himself. He pretty much left his guys out in the cold and refused to defend them. Now it turns out it was an animal bone. I am not so naive to assume that either the media or the chief will apologize.

I guess all the talking heads at CNN are experts at searching a heavily-wooded area for evidence and would have found it. Right. That blimp of a chief deserves a vote of no confidence from his troops. One of the first duties of a chief is to protect his officers from unwarranted criticism and second-guessing by know-nothings. He obviously cares more about his own job than anything, or anyone, else.

[KCadet]

He just didn't want to be the one blamed. So he said things would get better. I bet you he'll next say that they should have found the bone first anyway...

[ateamer]

No kidding. Unfortunately for him, being chief means he gets to take the blame. And a good leader never criticizes his troops in public.

[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: ateamer ]

[jarhead6073]

You know that one of the guys or girls that searched the park is saying "I found that d#mn bone but I KNEW it was a freaking animal bone!"

[Sparky]

I'm not going to be popular here, but....

IF the remains were incomplete...

then the area should have been searched thoroughly for remains scattered by animals, weather, gravity, etc.

This search area should not be limited to only the immediate surroundings. I have often searched wooded areas exceeding one hundred square yards for small things such as teeth, hand bones, and shell casings. It's a long arduous process, but it must be done.

Very small bones such as the distal phalanx (finger tip), or teeth can be hard to find, but can be very valuable evidence.

What we don't know at this point, and one thing that I am not at all willing to assume, is whether or not the bone was there at the time of the search, if in fact, such a search was indicated and subsequently performed.

[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Sparky ]

[Don]

Have to go with Sparky here. The only thing that I can think of though is that when I was in the position of searching for body parts it was in the desert, rather than in a wooded hilly region. Thank the lord for small favors now and then!

It was bad enough WITHOUT the brush. Animals (particularly coyotes,) will scatter remains for hundreds of feet.

[Joseph]

I think a good leader takes up for his men and that's what he should have done. Unless it's gross misconduct.

[SpecOpsWarrior]

I have had the displeasure of searching for remains in a heavily wooded area and let me tell you, it's a real B!TCH.

The only method I'm familiar with for searching a heavily wooded area is called a grid search. Basically you divide your search area up into grids, then you line your people up side by side, then march them through the woods looking for the object of your search. The forward movement of your line will cover each grid. You got a guy on each end working a compass, and another guy on each end tagging trees every few yards, in between each end you have however many people you need, doing the actual searching.

The key to a proper grid search is the cardinal rule that the entire line moves as fast as the slowest man. Now try doing a grid search with 30 other people and maintaining a tight line when you hit underbrush so thick that rabbits cant even get through it.

Throw in briars, thorns, kudzu, creeks, ravines, rock formations, large man made objects, garbage piles, and other trash, and you can see how it's really easy to miss spots.