THE FUGITIVE

We deserve a logical explanation for why tracking dogs weren’t brought in during the wee hours of Friday morning to capture Boston marathon bomber suspect #2 who had escaped afoot there in Watertown.



One can think of some possible answers. Maybe they figured he’d bleed to death from the wounds he’d gottern in the preceding gunfight. So they’d be able to just go out there in the morning and pick up a corpse. But they didn’t know if he’d had first aid training, and besides, they wanted him alive to find out about his links.



Maybe they just didn’t think using dogs would work due to some specific aspect of this situation. Oh yeah, like what? This seemed like a perfect opportunity to turn the hounds loose.



They didn’t want to risk the lives of the handlers and the dogs. This suspect was armed and dangerous. Well, isn’t that often the case with men on the run? They could’ve sent a well-armed posse along with the tracking dog(s).



Until we get something credible from the authorities, we’ll just have to consider other sources.

Here, then, are some possible conspiracy theory explanations for the no-tracking-dogs faux pas/gaffe/overlook/oversight.



The authorities don’t want us to defer to animal intelligence, as it could lead to us realizing how stupid humans are. Dogs, for example, have much better sense of smell and hearing than humans, along with by and large having more endearing personalities.



The dog(s) who track down this suspect would become attain overnight celebrity status--which current celebrities wouldn’t want as they’re all the jealous type.



The TV networks and their sponsors didn’t want to slay the goose that laid the golden egg.. TV ratings were sky high during the search for the suspects--it was like OJ Part 2.



The military industrial complex, which includes homeland security, wants us to be impressed with its fancy gadgetry --night vision goggles , armored suits, helicopters, video surveillance, etc. Training a dog and executing a canine search don’t require a lot of expensive technology.



Idea for cartoon

An elderly woman is answering the doorbell. At the door are several heavily armed swat team types. To the one in charge, holding up a photo, she says “Oh yes officer, he’s upstairs napping. He asked to rent a room for a couple of weeks while he sorted some things out. Nice young fella!”


Addendum: I’ve figured it out. The authorities thought about sending the dogs out but concluded that the risk level to the dogs and any accompanying handler was too great given the suspects’ evident indifference to life and the possible possession of more bombs--as had been thrown at the cops that night. Besides, who could say that the suspect didn’t have the ability to place a land mine? And not knowing where the blood trail ends until it ends somewhere out there in the darkness could have jeopardized their lives in one last firefight, as he might see/hear them coming.


In other words, the authorities likely figured that they pretty much had the suspect pinned down by closing off roads in the area. So they probably just decided to call it a night and pick up the chase in the morning, deeming the suspect not likely to be an immediate threat overnight as long as everyone stayed inside.

A BLOODHOUND, A BLOODHOUND: MY KINGDOM FOR A BLOODHOUND !!

In all of the post-manhunt celebration for the Boston marathon bombers capture--dead or alive (one of each), there have been few complaints heard about a card the authorities probably had in hand but for some reason, or due to some logistical circumstance--they didn’t play it.




I’m talking about a BLOODHOUND !!! Why didn’t the FBI, the Boston police, or somebody--anybody bring one of these dogs to the scene of suspect #2’s disappearance near where he abandoned his stolen car. Let the dog sniff around at the fresh blood there and watch him take you without fail to where the suspect was hiding.



I’m no expert, but it seems like a no-brainer. Use dog, and suspect is virtually a guaranteed capture in less than an hour. Or don’t use dog , and see what you got--an entire metropolitan area shut down all day Friday and into the night.



So why hasn’t the mainstream media even touched on this subject? Conspiracy theorists might say it was for the tv ratings. People around the nation, maybe even the world, were glued to their tv sets (if not on the Internet) for hours at a time while the manhunt was active. It was as mesmerizing as O.J. Simpson’s Bronco chase !!



Nobody wanted a little old sniffling dog to come in and steal the limelight. That’s old-fashioned homeland security, not the kind of high tech equipment that’s going to make the big bucks for the 21st century military industrial complex



For an idea of just how effective these dogs are check out this website: MythBusters Episode 148: Hair of the Dog. Link to: mythbustersresults.com/hair-of-the-day..



Even if you decide to send a dog out there with a couple of fully-armored handlers, and a dozen or so of your best shooters wearing night vision goggles, you can still do a neighborhood check at more or less the same time. There was no shortage of law enforcement personnel at the sight. And, like with walking and chewing gum, one activity need not interfere with the other.

ON THE SIDE OF GUN SAFETY (WHO ISN'T ??)

The people who oppose the National Rifle Association (NRA) ought to consider a name change from “Gun Control” Supporters/Advocates to something more positive, less to do with big government intruding into your 2nd amendment rights. To much of America, “Control” signifies “Regulation” which means the common man giving up his right to self-protection because of a bunch of lily-livered communistic city folk and big government. And an individual described as “controlling” is felt to have a personality disorder.




The anti-NRAers might try “Gun Safety” to describe themselves. Who wouldn’t want to be on the side of “gun safety”? Big Brother doesn’t want to take all our guns away, they just want us to handle them carefully--so the reasoning goes. The name is the thing. Look at how the term “safe sex” caught on. It’s unlikely that “rubber sex” would have had the same positive impact.

BOSTON MARATHON HUNT: NO SHORTCUTS ALLOWED

The authorities tonight finally captured suspect #2 in the Boston Marathon Bombings. They credited a tip from the Franklin Street resident and owner of the boat on the property where the suspect had holed-up nursing his wounds. This man had seen the blood at the boat site and reportedly saw the stowaway suspect there, too. It isn’t clear whether the suspect saw him back, and if so, why he didn’t flee at once. Perhaps he was too weak from blood loss.



The cops already were pretty sure they had drawn blood at the scene of a shootout the night before less than a mile away. There was a spattering of blood at the location where the suspect had abandoned his stolen car after driving it away from that shootout. So it’s pretty likely there was a trail of blood that could have been used to track the suspect overnight. A trained bloodhound could have easily followed that blood to wherever the suspect had gone.



But rather than employ a dog to do what they do so well, the authorities went about the time-consuming chore of going door-to-door within a specific radius which, as it turned out, wasn’t quite long enough to ensnare the suspect. The dog would have trailed the suspect afoot even until the last drop of blood fell from his body, if necessary.



If the suspect had been able to stanch the outpouring of blood sufficiently to create a gap in the path, by afternoon the authorities should have been able to present the dog with an overall scent profile--like a dirty sock or undershirt--of the suspect since by then they’d accessed his apartment.  Or the dog could have just gone on body scent that accompanied the blood--and/or from the car.