Podcasts by Mark Saunokonoko of 9News.

[Mr Gray]

Just because science was unable to identify the material doesn't mean the dog was wrong. It was trained to detect blood, only blood and only human blood. Your denials are becoming rather silly imo.

i also deny the earth is flat and no doubt flat earthers find my argumnets silly...I place you in the same bracket. Finding a dna sample does not confirm the alert unless it can be identified as blood.

Secondly Grime says the dog can only recognises the blood odour if it has dried in situ...so did a live madeleine bleed in the car ...30 days after her disappearance...there are simply more questions than answers..

this is what Grime said...


Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

so have the csi alerts been confirmed  by forensic analysis...no....you need to listen to what Grime says...not make it up yourself as you go along..its you that is looking silly

[G-Unit]

Our cat is very clever.
However we would have to acquire large amounts of cash and drugs to be able to train him to sniff out either of them.

It may be clever but it doesn't have the nose for it.

[Venturi Swirl]

It may be clever but it doesn't have the nose for it.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/could-cats-replace-searchandrescue-dogs-if-we-can-motivate-them/news-story/57b549f5a2f77399485412c696fdb84b

[G-Unit]

i also deny the earth is flat and no doubt flat earthers find my argumnets silly...I place you in the same bracket. Finding a dna sample does not confirm the alert unless it can be identified as blood.

Secondly Grime says the dog can only recognises the blood odour if it has dried in situ...so did a live madeleine bleed in the car ...30 days after her disappearance...there are simply more questions than answers..

this is what Grime said...


Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

so have the csi alerts been confirmed  by forensic analysis...no....you need to listen to what Grime says...not make it up yourself as you go along..its you that is looking silly

The CSI dog's alerts were confirmed in Grime's opinion. It seems you are one of those he referred to as having misunderstood the dog's work and alerts. 

[Venturi Swirl]

The CSI dog's alerts were confirmed in Grime's opinion. It seems you are one of those he referred to as having misunderstood the dog's work and alerts.

Do you have a cite?

[Mr Gray]

The CSI dog's alerts were confirmed in Grime's opinion. It seems you are one of those he referred to as having misunderstood the dog's work and alerts.

No they were not... Cite required... The only alert confirmed was ti the key... You shoe how little you understand

[Mr Gray]

The CSI dog's alerts were confirmed in Grime's opinion. It seems you are one of those he referred to as having misunderstood the dog's work and alerts.

Grime confirmed exactly what I have said... The, alerts, are not evidence they simply point the investigators where to look for evidence... You have incorrectly claimed the alerts, are circumstantial evidence... Grime has confirmed you are, wrong

[The General]

Grime confirmed exactly what I have said... The, alerts, are not evidence they simply point the investigators where to look for evidence... You have incorrectly claimed the alerts, are circumstantial evidence... Grime has confirmed you are, wrong

Aren't the concept of finding something and showing someone where to look for something exactly the same thing? It's just one requires assistance from someone / something else.

Blaine, looks for his tennis bag in the trunk of the hire car. He finds it.

Blaine asks Rochelle 'have you seen the tennis bag?' Rochelle directs Blaine to the trunk of the car 'look in there, you big, hairy spanner'. He finds it.

In both circumstances it was there all along, Blaine just needed Rochelle's help finding it in example 2.
You dingbat, Blaine!

[Venturi Swirl]

Aren't the concept of finding something and showing someone where to look for something exactly the same thing? It's just one requires assistance from someone / something else.

Blaine, looks for his tennis bag in the trunk of the hire car. He finds it.

Blaine asks Rochelle 'have you seen the tennis bag?' Rochelle directs Blaine to the trunk of the car 'look in there, you big, hairy spanner'. He finds it.

In both circumstances it was there all along, Blaine just needed Rochelle's help finding it in example 2.
You dingbat, Blaine!

Blaine?  Rochelle?  Was that in an episode of Neighbours? 

[Brietta]

The cites are on here somewhere because I remember seeing them but here are 2 for your perusal.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bomb-dogs-failed-dozens-tests-10-large-u-s-airports-n648466

https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2019/02/are-drug-sniffing-dogs-accurate-1.html

I respect what trained dogs can find but wouldn't trust their judgements to determine the fate of my child without tangible corroboration.

I posted this one ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg502452#msg502452

Dogs cannot be guaranteed to be 100% fail safe ... whatever they may be trained to sniff out ...

French police 'lose' explosives at Marseilles airport
Sniffer dogs fail to find explosives during training exercise and gendarmes apparently forget where they hid them

Kim Willsher in Paris
Wed 2 Jul 2014 10.53 BST

French gendarmes in Marseille face being disciplined after reportedly "losing" explosives during a training exercise.

The officers were believed to have hidden the 100g block C-4 plastic explosive – known to experts as a form of Composition C – in the freight section at the city airport for their sniffer dogs to find.

However, the sniffer dogs failed to find the explosives and the gendarmes apparently forgot where they had hidden them.

"There was a surveillance failure," a local official told La Dépêche newspaper. "The explosive was lost." However, he insisted that without a fuse there was no real danger.

C-4, which is similar to semtex, is said to be very stable and able to withstand physical shocks without exploding. During the Vietnam war, American soldiers would sometimes burn small amounts of the explosive to heat their rations.

An inquiry is under way to see if there is a case for official sanctions or legal action against the gendarmes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/02/french-police-lose-explosives-marseille-airport

[The General]

Blaine?  Rochelle?  Was that in an episode of Neighbours?

G'day cobba. Blaine's gone and fell down a well, the great gallah, d'ya think we should crack open a tinnie for him? [dangling corks swing pendulously from the brim of the sweat-stained ocker as Brad reaches in to the cooler]

[Mr Gray]

Aren't the concept of finding something and showing someone where to look for something exactly the same thing? It's just one requires assistance from someone / something else.

Blaine, looks for his tennis bag in the trunk of the hire car. He finds it.

Blaine asks Rochelle 'have you seen the tennis bag?' Rochelle directs Blaine to the trunk of the car 'look in there, you big, hairy spanner'. He finds it.

In both circumstances it was there all along, Blaine just needed Rochelle's help finding it in example 2.
You dingbat, Blaine!

No

[The General]

No

Damn those infernal closed questions. Foiled again.
I'll get you next time Davel, mark my words, mwuhahaha......
Don't you agree?

[Mr Gray]

The CSI dog's alerts were confirmed in Grime's opinion. It seems you are one of those he referred to as having misunderstood the dog's work and alerts.

This post requires, a cite... Or be removed

[ShiningInLuz]

I posted this one ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10341.msg502452#msg502452

Dogs cannot be guaranteed to be 100% fail safe ... whatever they may be trained to sniff out ...

French police 'lose' explosives at Marseilles airport
Sniffer dogs fail to find explosives during training exercise and gendarmes apparently forget where they hid them

Kim Willsher in Paris
Wed 2 Jul 2014 10.53 BST

French gendarmes in Marseille face being disciplined after reportedly "losing" explosives during a training exercise.

The officers were believed to have hidden the 100g block C-4 plastic explosive – known to experts as a form of Composition C – in the freight section at the city airport for their sniffer dogs to find.

However, the sniffer dogs failed to find the explosives and the gendarmes apparently forgot where they had hidden them.

"There was a surveillance failure," a local official told La Dépêche newspaper. "The explosive was lost." However, he insisted that without a fuse there was no real danger.

C-4, which is similar to semtex, is said to be very stable and able to withstand physical shocks without exploding. During the Vietnam war, American soldiers would sometimes burn small amounts of the explosive to heat their rations.

An inquiry is under way to see if there is a case for official sanctions or legal action against the gendarmes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/02/french-police-lose-explosives-marseille-airport

While I don't think dogs find 100% of whatever they are trained to find, that report strikes me as being as ripe as Camembert.

Has anyone considered that C-4 might have been removed from the scene for nefarious reasons?  I would expect it to have a fair street value.

What bothers me is the notion that whichever officer planted the C-4 he cannot remember where he planted it.