Dear [name deleted],
With regard to your request in relation to:
"1. Can you confirm that the cadaver dog "Eddie", formerly a police dog under
dog handler and dog instructor Martin Grime, now retired from your force, was
sent to America to be trained on human cadavers and be upgraded to "enhanced"
victim recovery dog?
2. Can you confirm that South Yorkshire Police uses, or has used, an American
device for trapping scents, a "Scent Transfer Unit" or "STU100" in the
training of its cadaver dogs?"
RESPONSE
1. South Yorkshire Police holds information which would tend to confirm this part of your request. This information is contained within the anual Personal Development Review of retired PC GRIME for the year 2005/2006 and states at various points,
"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"
"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."
"Complete sponsored visit to FBI to educate on C.S.I. Dog capabilities - Achieved"
2. From enquiries I have made it would appear that South Yorkshire Police have not deployed or used a device known as a 'Scent Transfer Unit' or 'STU100' within Force either operationally or for evaluation. However the Force does hold information that would indicate that Mr GRIME, whilst serving with this Force IN 2006, did utilise such a device whilst engageD in another Force area. A section of a statement apparently made but not signed by Mr GRIME reads: -
" I developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles by a ST 100 Scent Tranference Unit.
The unit is designed in a two main-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. Ther is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second main part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated the ST 100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.
The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.
Use of the ST100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.
Operational use of the STU 100 is in a developmental stage"
If you are unhappy with the way your request for information has been handled, you can request a review by following the advice contained in the separate notice attached to this correspondence:
If you remain dissatisfied with the handling of your request or complaint, you have a right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745
Website: www.ico.gov.uk
There is no charge for making an appeal.
Yours sincerely
___________________________
The follow-up quetion:
__________________________-
Freedom of Information Request - Reference No:20110231
REQUEST
[Following a response to request 20110186]
Can I ask, did that FBI report described as 'pending' turn up?
RESPONSE
SYP did not receive a report, therefore there is `no information held'.
The third FOI answer (which I believe Carana has) asked, straightforwardly, what training or preparation Eddie had received to equip him for his duties as a police dog.
The answer was that Eddie's training was in conformance with standard ACPO guidelines.
Then a link was given to the ACPO dog-training manual.
As you would expect, the ACPO dog-training manual says nothing about sending dogs to America. It explains in detail how dog-training courses are set up in the UK using pig carcasses and pig scents.
---------------------------------------------------------
From Amazon............
' On 4th May this year, DCI wrote a post on the same site. This is from that post
'' Grime claims that Eddie has been trained on such a farm in the States. An FOI answer to a question I have submitted cited parts of a Personal Development review for the Year 2005-6 when it was stated that Eddie (then aged 5 or 6, and close to retirement) had been to the States for that training. The cited justification was, not that it would improve Eddie's performance, but that it would "generate some income potential".
Until his last day of service, the daily cost of hiring Eddie was just £10. And no documention confirming this apparent trip was ever received by SYP.''
The last sentence is untrue. The FOI response merely stated that the report was not in the file. There was no statement that it was never received, nor was there any request to locate it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6271.270Of course, any idiot who thinks an officer can just swan off to the other side of the Atlantic without having the request signed off by a senior officer, needs locking up.
So contrary to the claims of Ferryman and DCI, they are in possession of confirmation that Mr Grime DID take the dog for training in the states '
