What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?

[G-Unit]

so the dogs identified areas of interest...thats all...nothing more...

the evidence against gilroy was overwhelming and the result would have been the same without the alerts...imo...you may not agree ..its all opinion

I mentioned the Pilley/Gilroy case purely to illustrate what can be used as corroborating evidence. There's no need for you to try to play down the alerts. I would discuss them with you, but it's off topic, isn't it?

[kizzy]

There weren't just 19 markers but something like 37 markers in total.  So it was a mixed sample therefore inconclusive.

So if this happened how does anyone know what the outcome would be - seems humane error stopped any further test.


 But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis



EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?

SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.

So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis

[Robittybob1]

from what I understand is the samples being so small are used up in the analysis.

[Mr Gray]

So if this happened how does anyone know what the outcome would be - seems humane error stopped any further test.


 But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis



EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?

SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.

So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis

ho human error...no samples lost...samples destroyed in line with home office regulations

if you knew who the three to 5 people were you could possibly recreate the profiles but its unknown who those were who contributed.......the 15 alleles in this case confirmed nothing

[Mr Gray]

So if this happened how does anyone know what the outcome would be - seems humane error stopped any further test.


 But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis



EAK: If you get DNA from three different people, can we recreate the DNA of anyone?

SA: If the DNA is collected DNA mixed with that of 3 individuals in an equivalent manner, then we could actually find the DNA profile of anyone. The mine just like yours. But it is important that the mixture is perfectly equivalent. In which case the reliability rate is very low, from 1 to a billion 1 per 1,000 or 1 in 100. It is therefore more question to consider this result as discriminatory.

So what happened? NRL unreliable? The contaminated samples at the second analysis, but not the first? The first botched analysis by the FSS? There would be a good way of knowing. As two expert reports contradict each other, we practise a third analysis in an independent lab. But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis[/b]

where is this from...amarls book...there were no contaminated samples.....no botched FSS analysis ...just a lot of unsupported calims here

[kizzy]

ho human error...no samples lost...samples destroyed in line with home office regulations

if you knew who the three to 5 people were you could possibly recreate the profiles but its unknown who those were who contributed.......the 15 alleles in this case confirmed nothing

So why is it that it cannot be explained.D... the 2 carried out contradict each other ...so obviously a third should have been done

2 out of three now will never be known - but the 2 that was done contradicted ....so there you go.

 But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis

[Brietta]

So why is it that it cannot be explained.D... the 2 carried out contradict each other ...so obviously a third should have been done

2 out of three now will never be known - but the 2 that was done contradicted ....so there you go.

 But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis

Please provide a cite in support of your argument.

[Mr Gray]

So why is it that it cannot be explained.D... the 2 carried out contradict each other ...so obviously a third should have been done

2 out of three now will never be known - but the 2 that was done contradicted ....so there you go.

 But, alas, following an incident that remains unexplained, the only existing DNA samples were inadvertently lost or destroyed by the laboratory. What makes impossible a third analysis

could you provide a cite that samples were lost or destroyed.....I dont think either are true.....the start of your post doesnt seem to make any sense...the 15 allleles has been simply expalined

[Mr Gray]

What I would suggest is that Grime arranges for some property conducted scientific  tests to be carried out Re cadaver dogs so that some proper conclusions can be drawn

[barrier]

What I would suggest is that Grime arranges for some property conducted scientific  tests to be carried out Re cadaver dogs so that some proper conclusions can be drawn

For whose benefit and why specifically Martin Grime?

[Mr Gray]

For whose benefit and why specifically Martin Grime?

For the benefit if the justice system. Grime is making claims Re his dogs.... If he wants ti be taken seriously he needs some data to support his claims.... Other wise his claims, are not supported by evidence and therefore of little value

[barrier]

For the benefit if the justice system. Grime is making claims Re his dogs.... If he wants ti be taken seriously he needs some data to support his claims.... Other wise his claims, are not supported by evidence and therefore of little value

Good enough for the American justice system.

At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham's protocol called for regular single-and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham's program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime's dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim's death, or years after a victim's burial.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.
Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey's car. Grime did not know where the objects were located in the building, and the objects had been placed in a room filled with “all sorts of things.” Morse alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's car seat and a bag containing Bianca's blanket. Grime later took the dogs to Dungey's house. Morse alerted him to the odor of decomposition in a room that contained bunk beds and a closet without a door.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html

[Brietta]

For the benefit if the justice system. Grime is making claims Re his dogs.... If he wants ti be taken seriously he needs some data to support his claims.... Other wise his claims, are not supported by evidence and therefore of little value

In my opinion science consists of things like ... experiment - recording data - replication (if that is the correct scientific term showing that results are consistent?) ...

I think independent record keeping to substantiate and improve on findings is essential.

[barrier]

In my opinion science consists of things like ... experiment - recording data - replication (if that is the correct scientific term showing that results are consistent?) ...

I think independent record keeping to substantiate and improve on findings is essential.

Is it known that its not.

[Robittybob1]

Is it known that its not.

Would you be willing to expand that question so even I can understand it please.  I think it is a question without a question mark.