Author Topic: Amaral and the dogs  (Read 844596 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3975 on: August 25, 2015, 08:28:16 PM »
I'm so glad to hear it.  Now, perhaps you'd like to give us your opinion of the Mark Harrison quote underlined by Carana above.  Was he wrong to write what he wrote, in your view?  CAN we infer that a cadaver was present in 5a from the dog alerts alone?  If not, then there must be a reason why the dog alerts cannot be considered as standalone evidence - what is that reason?

The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3976 on: August 25, 2015, 08:40:41 PM »
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Surely there is another reason?  If dogs were 100% always right would the above even be an issue?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3977 on: August 25, 2015, 08:58:12 PM »
Surely there is another reason?  If dogs were 100% always right would the above even be an issue?

At least part of the reason is that you can never be sure that a dog hasn't alerted to blood.

I am somewhat out on a limb on this one, but it has long been my belief that US forensic canine program (for which Grime worked briefly) sought to overcome this by teaming up two dogs, one desensitised to the scent of blood, the other, trained to react to nothing else (so that the potential advantage of finding blood was not lost), so that an alert (by the cadaver dog desensitised to blood) could be accepted without corroboration as evidence of murder.

Certainly in the Bianca Jones case (where Grime operated with Morse and Keela) uncorroborated alerts by Morse were accepted as stand-alone evidence of murder, and D'Andre Lane was handed a life term for the murder of his daughter.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3978 on: August 25, 2015, 09:30:15 PM »
is this the article you are referring to Stephen
http://aboutforensics.co.uk/detection-dogs/

sorry stephen i seem to have missed you...is this the article  which is the basis of your claim

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3979 on: August 25, 2015, 09:35:44 PM »
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

if the alert cannot be proven then it cannot be accepted as a fact ...simple

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3980 on: August 25, 2015, 09:40:59 PM »
Surely there is another reason?  If dogs were 100% always right would the above even be an issue?

dna evidence is not 100% reliable yet it is accepted as evidence. The alerts are not accepted because they are so unreliable...unless someone can give a better reason

Offline sadie

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3981 on: August 25, 2015, 09:52:51 PM »
The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Yep, but Eddie also alerts to dried blood from the living , doesn't he?

.... and he was trained on pig, wasn't he?




All the gobbledegook in the world doesn't change that.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3982 on: August 25, 2015, 11:39:39 PM »
Yep, but Eddie also alerts to dried blood from the living , doesn't he?

.... and he was trained on pig, wasn't he?




All the gobbledegook in the world doesn't change that.

Adrian Prout should have used that one (Eddie was alerting to blood!) but you can't fool a well trained dog's nose. Eddie goes in first to detect cadaver scent. No alert then the blood dog ain't used and Keela found none on the clothes.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3983 on: August 26, 2015, 06:29:15 AM »
Adrian Prout should have used that one (Eddie was alerting to blood!) but you can't fool a well trained dog's nose. Eddie goes in first to detect cadaver scent. No alert then the blood dog ain't used and Keela found none on the clothes.

Adrian Prout is a poor example.

Eddie alerted in the Prouts' main home and Prout murdered and buried his wife in an out-house several hundred yards away.

And as to the point I underline, in PdL, Keela was deployed first in the gym (without alerting!); then Eddie was deployed.

Why?

More than that, I don't believe that Eddie and Keela were ever deployed together before PdL.

Still, I have tended to give Eddie benefit of the doubt that Prout may have cross-transferred a death scent into the matrimonial home from his clothes after burying his wife.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3984 on: August 26, 2015, 08:57:49 AM »
Adrian Prout is a poor example.

Eddie alerted in the Prouts' main home and Prout murdered and buried his wife in an out-house several hundred yards away.

And as to the point I underline, in PdL, Keela was deployed first in the gym (without alerting!); then Eddie was deployed.

Why?

More than that, I don't believe that Eddie and Keela were ever deployed together before PdL.

Still, I have tended to give Eddie benefit of the doubt that Prout may have cross-transferred a death scent into the matrimonial home from his clothes after burying his wife.
But he didn't alert to the vehicle that was used to transport the body, first to the pub where Prout spent the evening and then to the burial site. 

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3985 on: August 26, 2015, 09:07:26 AM »
But he didn't alert to the vehicle that was used to transport the body, first to the pub where Prout spent the evening and then to the burial site.

Wasn't aware of those details.

If that's right, then I was wrong (to give the dog benefit of the doubt) ...

Are there any instances of Eddie and Keela being deployed together before PdL?

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3986 on: August 26, 2015, 09:16:15 AM »
For starters...............


Originally written on 7th June 2008

Article by Dr Rosemary Claire Taylor MA MB BChir (Cantab)

Olfaction, the act or process of smelling, is the primary special sense possessed by dogs. A dog’s sense of smell is a thousand times more sensitive than humans. Dogs have more than 220 million olfactory receptors in their nose, whereas humans only have 5 million. Specially trained dogs have been used to locate forensic cadaver material and disaster survivors. Highly trained dogs assisted the emergency services in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre on September 11th, 2001.

Cadaver dogs need to undergo rigorous training. Prior to beginning a specialised training programme, these dogs need to have basic obedience skills. The cue a dog uses to indicate forensic material depends on the trainer. Some dogs are trained to bark to indicate cadavers, whereas others scratch at the area in the crime scene. Dogs are given a verbal cue to start searching, and directional cues such as “check it out” to indicate an area requiring a more detailed search.

A variety of breeds can be trained to hunt forensic material. Bloodhounds, springer spaniels and labradors are commonly used. Trained cadaver dogs have the ability to detect decomposing bodies beneath running water, for example when a corpse is weighted down, and placed at the bottom of a river.

I have done a thorough search of academic journals on this subject, and will present my findings as follows:
1. Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.
Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (bodies are all less than 3 hours old). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).

Reference:

Cadaver dogs–a study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.

Oesterhelweg L, Kröber S, Rottmann K, Willhöft J, Braun C, Thies N, Püschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.

Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.

Notes on the scientific terminology in this study;

Sensitivity means the number of correct detections out of 100. Here, all dogs managed to correctly identify 75-100 carpet squares out of 100. This is a good success rate.
Specificity describes the number of false identifications. A sensitivity of 91 out of 100 means, at most, there are 9 false positives in a sample of 100 uncontaminated squares. This is a good specificity, much higher than cervical screening, which can detect far more false positives.
The Positive Predictive Value can be defined as;

In other words, out of 100, there are 75-100 true positives, and 0-9 false positives. A positive predictive value describes the percentage chance, if a sample is contaminated, that the dog will discover it. The value of 90-100 means that, out of 100 contaminated squares, at least 90 are correctly identified by the dog.
The Negative Predictive Value can be defined as;

In other words, out of 100, there are 0-9 false positives and 0-25 false negatives. A negative predictive value describes the chance that, if a sample is not contaminated, the dog will correctly identify the sample as clear of human remains. The study quotes a negative predictive value of 90-100. This means only 0-10 ‘clean’ squares are wrongly identified as contaminated by the dogs.

Accuracy is the degree to which the evidence presented by the dogs matches known information about which squares were marked. The accuracy of dog detection is presented as 92-100. This means that dogs correctly identify carpet squares as ‘marked’ or ‘unmarked’ in at least 92 cases out of 100. This is an impressive accuracy score.
In addition, I think it is important to consider that this is an experiment, not real life. In reality cadaver dogs are given more time to assess possible traces of human remains. Hence in a true police setting, cadaver dogs are more likely to give accurate information.

2. Specially trained air scent detection canines (Canis familiaris) are commonly used by law enforcement to detect narcotics, explosives or contraband, and by fire investigators to detect the presence of accelerants. Dogs are also used by police, military, and civilian groups to locate lost or missing persons, as well as victims of natural or mass disasters. A further subspecialty is “cadaver” searching, or the use of canines to locate buried or concealed human remains.

Recent forensic investigations in central Alberta demonstrated that the use of cadaver dogs could be expanded to include locating partial, scattered human remains dispersed by repeated animal scavenging. Eight dog-and-handler teams participated in a two-month training program using human and animal remains in various stages of decay as scent sources. Ten blind field tests were then conducted which simulated actual search conditions. Recovery rates ranged between 57% and 100%, indicating that properly trained cadaver dogs can make significant contributions in the location and recovery of scattered human remains.

Reference:

J Forensic Sci. 1999 Mar;44(2):405-8.
The use of cadaver dogs in locating scattered, scavenged human remains: preliminary field test results. Komar D.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

This study was written in 1999. Nonetheless, in situations where there are scattered human remains, dogs identify them in 57-100% of cases.

3. The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains.

Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonised. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains.

The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonised remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonised remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains.

Reference:

J Forensic Sci. 2003 May;48(3):617-21.
Cadaver dog and handler team capabilities in the recovery of buried human remains in the southeastern United States.Lasseter AE, Jacobi KP, Farley R, Hensel L.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0210, USA.

This is an impressive study. The salient points are that cadaver dogs can identify a corpse, or a piece of a corpse, which had been buried at a significant depth. This gives the dog handlers an opportunity to investigate a more ‘real life’ crime scene. Following a murder, it is normal for a criminal to hide any human remains, often by burying the corpse. It appears that these dogs can still detect the ‘smell of death’, when a body part is buried deep in a forest.

- See more at: http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/#sthash.1xx3kVVt.dpuf

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3987 on: August 26, 2015, 09:40:25 AM »
For starters...............




When are you going to begin?

With anything remotely relevant or applicable to the topic under discussion?

We were discussing whether I was right to give Eddie benefit of doubt over his alert in the Prouts' main house when Prout murdered and buried his wife in an outhouse several hundred yards away.

From what Alfred has posted, it seems I wasn't.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3988 on: August 26, 2015, 09:49:54 AM »
When are you going to begin?

With anything remotely relevant or applicable to the topic under discussion?

We were discussing whether I was right to give Eddie benefit of doubt over his alert in the Prouts' main house when Prout murdered and buried his wife in an outhouse several hundred yards away.

From what Alfred has posted, it seems I wasn't.

It was for davel 8**8:/:

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Amaral and the dogs
« Reply #3989 on: August 26, 2015, 10:51:25 AM »
Adrian Prout is a poor example.

Eddie alerted in the Prouts' main home and Prout murdered and buried his wife in an out-house several hundred yards away.

And as to the point I underline, in PdL, Keela was deployed first in the gym (without alerting!); then Eddie was deployed.

Why?

More than that, I don't believe that Eddie and Keela were ever deployed together before PdL.

Still, I have tended to give Eddie benefit of the doubt that Prout may have cross-transferred a death scent into the matrimonial home from his clothes after burying his wife.

Keela inspected the clothes first to rule out blood so if Eddie comes next and alerts it suggests cadaver odour.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.