I don't believe you can put a figure on the accuracy as there are to many external factors which have to be taken into account. If you gave every dog the same test then compared the results then I would accept the findings but sporadic results combined are worthless.
Thats what I mean it is all based on the results provided by people who have their own agenda to succeed and make lots of cash.
This any use? See table, third row of results, PPV, much higher than 90%
http://ksgarvin.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/garvin.ppt
Link to full paper
http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf
Not sure if that is what you are looking for, but interesting all the same
Well, in that case, I give over to the scientifically knowledgable here who know what you are talking about, and can respond, I don't as it's over my head
OK thanks, I understood that time. So time to test more cadaver dogs then
8((()*/
I will if you link me to one on cadaver dogsOK thanks, I understood that time. So time to test more cadaver dogs then
8((()*/
Or look at the other better designed experiments.
I will if you link me to one on cadaver dogsOK thanks, I understood that time. So time to test more cadaver dogs then
8((()*/
Or look at the other better designed experiments.
What about all the times the dogs failed to detect anything when there was in fact something to find? Are these episodes classified as fools errands or are they conveniently overlooked? Let's face it a spaniel's hooter and what it can achieve is not an accurate science and more akin to a circus act.
Those who promote this ability or whatever it is called do so in order to embelish their own credibility and line their pockets. How many of these dogs are winging their way to Bangladesh to do their bit?
What about all the times the dogs failed to detect anything when there was in fact something to find? Are these episodes classified as fools errands or are they conveniently overlooked? Let's face it a spaniel's hooter and what it can achieve is not an accurate science and more akin to a circus act.
Those who promote this ability or whatever it is called do so in order to embelish their own credibility and line their pockets. How many of these dogs are winging their way to Bangladesh to do their bit?
What about all the times the dogs failed to detect anything when there was in fact something to find? Are these episodes classified as fools errands or are they conveniently overlooked? Let's face it a spaniel's hooter and what it can achieve is not an accurate science and more akin to a circus act.
Those who promote this ability or whatever it is called do so in order to embelish their own credibility and line their pockets. How many of these dogs are winging their way to Bangladesh to do their bit?
Totally agree but when arguing with fanatical dog supporters it is necessary to proceed one step at a time.
What about all the times the dogs failed to detect anything when there was in fact something to find? Are these episodes classified as fools errands or are they conveniently overlooked? Let's face it a spaniel's hooter and what it can achieve is not an accurate science and more akin to a circus act.
Those who promote this ability or whatever it is called do so in order to embelish their own credibility and line their pockets. How many of these dogs are winging their way to Bangladesh to do their bit?
Totally agree but when arguing with fanatical dog supporters it is necessary to proceed one step at a time.
But you have missed alot of steps on the way DB
8(0(*
I am not a fanatical dog worshipper, btw, you just have not convinced me with your that there is nothing to see here so lets all move along argument
AND you HAVE convinced me of quite a few things recently, and made me rethink, but here, no, so, assuming your skills are equal in all areas, there must be something lacking in this particular debate
The only point that I am making is that dog alerts are fallible.
Eddie was tested constantly by Grimes using a jar filled with some old decayed relic with its own distinctive odour so what's to say this is what Eddie tried to find every time he went out to play? What are the chances that this same odour is left behind by a fresh corpse?
Nobody is saying it is a clown act redblossom. It is a game to these dogs which us humans have tried to harness to our own advantage. Sometimes it works but more than often they find nothing. My point is that when they find nothing how do we know that is a false positive rather than a true negative ?? 8)-)))
Ps DB is correct, dogs are not infallible.
Where is the option ;
I believe some dogs may be more accurate than this ?
You cannot provide statistics and then apply them uniformly to every dog ... stats are a general indication, nothing more
It's like quoting a statistic that surgeons make serious errors one time in ten ... therefore no surgeon is able to maintain a 100% success rate
This poll should not be pinned as it is flawed in it's premise
Where is the option ;
I believe some dogs may be more accurate than this ?
You cannot provide statistics and then apply them uniformly to every dog ... stats are a general indication, nothing more
It's like quoting a statistic that surgeons make serious errors one time in ten ... therefore no surgeon is able to maintain a 100% success rate
This poll should not be pinned as it is flawed in it's premise
No peer reviewed substantial stdy has ever shown a rate higher than 90%. Most are much lower.
Where is the option ;
I believe some dogs may be more accurate than this ?
You cannot provide statistics and then apply them uniformly to every dog ... stats are a general indication, nothing more
It's like quoting a statistic that surgeons make serious errors one time in ten ... therefore no surgeon is able to maintain a 100% success rate
This poll should not be pinned as it is flawed in it's premise
No peer reviewed substantial stdy has ever shown a rate higher than 90%. Most are much lower.
Your statistics are nothing more than a general indication ( as all statistics are )
They do not support the suggestion that NO dog can be 100% accurate
Where is the option ;
I believe some dogs may be more accurate than this ?
You cannot provide statistics and then apply them uniformly to every dog ... stats are a general indication, nothing more
It's like quoting a statistic that surgeons make serious errors one time in ten ... therefore no surgeon is able to maintain a 100% success rate
This poll should not be pinned as it is flawed in it's premise
No peer reviewed substantial stdy has ever shown a rate higher than 90%. Most are much lower.
Your statistics are nothing more than a general indication ( as all statistics are )
They do not support the suggestion that NO dog can be 100% accurate
Some dogs might be 100% accurate some of the time. No singledog alert can ever be said with confidence to be accurate, given the evidence.
There is no false statement in the poll.
You are only upset because it does not comply with your world view.
There is no false statement in the poll.
You are only upset because it does not comply with your world view.
I have given my opinion
Your poll is flawed because it presents statistics as an indicator of certainty
I have nothing more to add
The thing you have to remember to is that different dogs trained on cadaver residue will react to different odours. Some are trained on real corpses in America while British dogs might have been trained on others forms of dead cellular human material. Point I am making is that one dog might react to something while another dog won't do so. I would love to see this put to test some day and then we would know just how good or bad these canines are.Eddie was trained on pigs and had extra training on humans in america
What is not made clear is the difference in odor between Pork prepared for food which is carefully treated to avoid offensive odors and pig flesh and other naturally decaying animal residue.
Food is usually kept well away from the intestines as soon as slaughter occurs and this reduces residual odors. It is quickly cleaned of all bacteria, drained of blood and chilled to keep it fit for consumption.
When Mr Grime declares that Eddie has not reacted to foodstuffs in 200 cases, this not exclude the possibility that if he came across dead animal residue, then he might well react to that.
When Mr Grime declares that Eddie has not reacted to foodstuffs in 200 cases, this not exclude the possibility that if he came across dead animal residue, then he might well react to that.
But surely the reference to road kill does?
When Mr Grime declares that Eddie has not reacted to foodstuffs in 200 cases, this not exclude the possibility that if he came across dead animal residue, then he might well react to that.
But surely the reference to road kill does?
It depends what he means by roadkill.
When Mr Grime declares that Eddie has not reacted to foodstuffs in 200 cases, this not exclude the possibility that if he came across dead animal residue, then he might well react to that.
But surely the reference to road kill does?
It depends what he means by roadkill.
I agree.
Grime hasn't given any details of what he means by roadkill (which dead animals have been ignored, how long they have been dead, in which weather conditions... ).
What I am not convinced about is Grime saying Eddie can pick up the scent of death shortly after death has occurred.
How can he know this when scientists who are investigating what cadaver dogs smell, haven't come up with an actual time span between death and the scent the dogs will pick up?
What I am not convinced about is Grime saying Eddie can pick up the scent of death shortly after death has occurred.
How can he know this when scientists who are investigating what cadaver dogs smell, haven't come up with an actual time span between death and the scent the dogs will pick up?
Perhaps he established it during his training of them. Perhaps scientists have not set up such a study.
As for what Mr Grime means by roadkill, ie dead animals, to me this means Eddie did not react to any other dead animal seeing as he was trained on pigs and humans, other dead animals having a different scent and he was trained to exclude all other scents
Devilsadvocate, of course, if you think he makes it up as he goes along, thats your prerogative, would seem a pretty poor strategy to me if he were out to deceive or exaggerate
What I am not convinced about is Grime saying Eddie can pick up the scent of death shortly after death has occurred.
How can he know this when scientists who are investigating what cadaver dogs smell, haven't come up with an actual time span between death and the scent the dogs will pick up?
Perhaps he established it during his training of them. Perhaps scientists have not set up such a study.
As for what Mr Grime means by roadkill, ie dead animals, to me this means Eddie did not react to any other dead animal seeing as he was trained on pigs and humans, other dead animals having a different scent and he was trained to exclude all other scents
Devilsadvocate, of course, if you think he makes it up as he goes along, thats your prerogative, would seem a pretty poor strategy to me if he were out to deceive or exaggerate
It would call into question the Law Enforcement Agencies who routuinely paid Mr Grime and his dogs £I,000 a day plus expenses out of public money
I guess the professionals must have been considerably more impressed with his results than some of the self proclaimed experts here
What I am not convinced about is Grime saying Eddie can pick up the scent of death shortly after death has occurred.
How can he know this when scientists who are investigating what cadaver dogs smell, haven't come up with an actual time span between death and the scent the dogs will pick up?
Perhaps he established it during his training of them. Perhaps scientists have not set up such a study.
As for what Mr Grime means by roadkill, ie dead animals, to me this means Eddie did not react to any other dead animal seeing as he was trained on pigs and humans, other dead animals having a different scent and he was trained to exclude all other scents
Devilsadvocate, of course, if you think he makes it up as he goes along, thats your prerogative, would seem a pretty poor strategy to me if he were out to deceive or exaggerate
It would call into question the Law Enforcement Agencies who routuinely paid Mr Grime and his dogs £I,000 a day plus expenses out of public money
I guess the professionals must have been considerably more impressed with his results than some of the self proclaimed experts here
I wonder whether the island of Jersey reckons its money was well spent?
And whether they are grateful for the discount Mr Grime, apparently, gave them?
I'll bet Grime has not earnt anything like the money since ...
What I am not convinced about is Grime saying Eddie can pick up the scent of death shortly after death has occurred.
How can he know this when scientists who are investigating what cadaver dogs smell, haven't come up with an actual time span between death and the scent the dogs will pick up?
Perhaps he established it during his training of them. Perhaps scientists have not set up such a study.
As for what Mr Grime means by roadkill, ie dead animals, to me this means Eddie did not react to any other dead animal seeing as he was trained on pigs and humans, other dead animals having a different scent and he was trained to exclude all other scents
Devilsadvocate, of course, if you think he makes it up as he goes along, thats your prerogative, would seem a pretty poor strategy to me if he were out to deceive or exaggerate
It would call into question the Law Enforcement Agencies who routuinely paid Mr Grime and his dogs £I,000 a day plus expenses out of public money
I guess the professionals must have been considerably more impressed with his results than some of the self proclaimed experts here
What about all the times the dogs failed to detect anything when there was in fact something to find? Are these episodes classified as fools errands or are they conveniently overlooked? Let's face it a spaniel's hooter and what it can achieve is not an accurate science and more akin to a circus act.
Those who promote this ability or whatever it is called do so in order to embelish their own credibility and line their pockets. How many of these dogs are winging their way to Bangladesh to do their bit?
The only thing that might convince me that the cadaver dog alerts in 5a had nothing to do with Madeleines disappearance was a post by Angelo IIRC ie that that flat had dozens of people going through it, unlike all the other places and one of them could have transferred this scent
Many of us have been making this point for years ...... and that the hire car was used by others before the McCanns.
Dog alerted to blood on the key fob. BTW did you not know the Scenic doesn't HAVE A WHEEL WELL in the car? So how can they find stufff in the wheel well, when the wheel is underneath the car
The only thing that might convince me that the cadaver dog alerts in 5a had nothing to do with Madeleines disappearance was a post by Angelo IIRC ie that that flat had dozens of people going through it, unlike all the other places and one of them could have transferred this scent
Many of us have been making this point for years ...... and that the hire car was used by others before the McCanns.
The hire car was NEW and had max of 2/3 previous hirers and a limited passenger list, they were all interviewed,the hire car had blood in the boot, and elsewhere,keela reacted, aNd no one can say the fss found no blood just cellular material in one breath while in another breath saying it was gerrys blood in the car
The only thing that might convince me that the cadaver dog alerts in 5a had nothing to do with Madeleines disappearance was a post by Angelo IIRC ie that that flat had dozens of people going through it, unlike all the other places and one of them could have transferred this scent
Many of us have been making this point for years ...... and that the hire car was used by others before the McCanns.
The hire car was NEW and had max of 2/3 previous hirers and a limited passenger list, they were all interviewed,the hire car had blood in the boot, and elsewhere,keela reacted, aNd no one can say the fss found no blood just cellular material in one breath while in another breath saying it was gerrys blood in the car
Gerry's blood was found on the key fob.
A mixed sample of several human's DNA was found in the back of the car. This was too small a sample to identify whether it was blood, other fluid or tissue. The DNA was not shown to be from Madeleine.
Gerry's blood was found on the key fob.
Pls cite where the fss said any blood was found ta, much is made by the fss and the mccanns that NO blood were found in the car or anywhere else
Pls cite where the fss said any blood was found ta, much is made by the fss and the mccanns that NO blood were found in the car or anywhere else, so all keelas alerts are erm not proven, and they never said gerrsy blood was found did they now debunker? So what on whatbasis do you assert gerrys blood was found? Surely not JUST on SOME markers matching Gerrys whilst bleating another sample having SOME markers of Madeleines, also from a sample collected after the blood dog alerted CANT be Madeleines.
Gerry's blood was found on the key fob.
A mixed sample of several human's DNA was found in the back of the car. This was too small a sample to identify whether it was blood, other fluid or tissue. The DNA was not shown to be from Madeleine.
Pls cite where the fss said any blood was found ta, much is made by the fss and the mccanns that NO blood were found in the car or anywhere else, so all keelas alerts are erm not proven, and they never said gerrsy blood was found did they now debunker? So what on whatbasis do you assert gerrys blood was found? Surely not JUST on SOME markers matching Gerrys whilst bleating another sample having SOME markers of Madeleines, also from a sample collected after the blood dog alerted CANT be Madeleines.
Gerry's blood was found on the key fob.
A mixed sample of several human's DNA was found in the back of the car. This was too small a sample to identify whether it was blood, other fluid or tissue. The DNA was not shown to be from Madeleine.
Sorry debunker you cant have it both ways, keela reacts to blood, you accept she did on the key fob but in your mind the boot was full of stuff so she may not have done, LOL, wonder what amount of detritous stuff was behind the sofa too, hello? And how do you know the gkove pocket was not fulk of cra p too???
i wonder who it really is that makes it up as they go along here, mr grime or all the dogs snapping at his heels and having hernias cos they are getting NOWHERE
8(>((
Nite now skeep tight
Sorry debunker you cant have it both ways, keela reacts to blood, you accept she did on the key fob but in your mind the boot was full of stuff so she may not have done, LOL, wonder what amount of detritous stuff was behind the sofa too, hello? And how do you know the gkove pocket was not fulk of cra p too???
i wonder who it really is that makes it up as they go along here, mr grime or all the dogs snapping at his heels and having hernias cos they are getting NOWHERE
8(>((
Nite now skeep tight
Sorry debunker you cant have it both ways, keela reacts to blood, you accept she did on the key fob but in your mind the boot was full of stuff so she may not have done, LOL, wonder what amount of detritous stuff was behind the sofa too, hello? And how do you know the gkove pocket was not fulk of cra p too???
i wonder who it really is that makes it up as they go along here, mr grime or all the dogs snapping at his heels and having hernias cos they are getting NOWHERE
8(>((
Nite now skeep tight
What I have written is accurate.
Are you drunk?
Sorry debunker you cant have it both ways, keela reacts to blood, you accept she did on the key fob but in your mind the boot was full of stuff so she may not have done, LOL, wonder what amount of detritous stuff was behind the sofa too, hello? And how do you know the gkove pocket was not fulk of cra p too???
i wonder who it really is that makes it up as they go along here, mr grime or all the dogs snapping at his heels and having hernias cos they are getting NOWHERE
8(>((
Nite now skeep tight
What I have written is accurate.
Are you drunk?
prove the fss found gerrys blood then come back nite now x
Problem is you take one keela alert as definifely true and gerrys blood but ignore the other alert by keela in the flat as not madeleine's and not blood thats why i said cant have it both ways
Debating with Redblossom is like trying to nail jelly to a wall - utterly futile exercise and best not attempted.
DB you misinderstood what I was asking, try again, I was not arguing about blood, keela or the places it was found
These quotes from the FSS report are to do with the material found behind the sofa in the case of Madeleines DNA mentioned and the material found on the key card of the car mentioning Gerry Mccann's DNA
Both relate to blood presumably as they were taken from where the blood dog alerted, but anyway
My point was that you and others talk about Gerrys blood being found as a fact but simutaneously saying Madeleine's was not found. So the question is how can you say that based on the report? What is the difference between the two quotes?
--------
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
DB
How were all the markers identified as Gerrys if it was an incomplete dna profile?
re swab 3a this is NOT the sample from the car that was from 3-5 people, it was a swab from the living room, granted it said from more than one person, my point was how do you say corresponding and confirmed markers match in one case must mean one thing, and corresponding and confirmed markers just cannot mean another
Whats the difference between an incomplete dna result and an incomplete dna profile vis a vis those two specific examples
Whats the difference between an incomplete dna result and an incomplete dna profile vis a vis those two specific examples
It is quite clear. One is possibly mixed but has few non-target markers. Given that we know that someone with those markers was in the room and there are most of their markers present it becomes likely that the target was the source.
Both 3a and 3b are specific enough for them to be said to be probably from the target.
Because one was partial and one was mixed and partial?Thats fine, leaving it there for now thanks
Could these pointless polls be unstickied? What do they prove? Nothing at all.
Redblossom:
if they are shy te and Gerry says they are whats the problem? ???
Translation please.
Redblossom:
if they are shy te and Gerry says they are whats the problem? ???
Translation please.
Gerry Mccann said the dogs are incredibly unreliable, so if anyone believes everything he says, there is no problem here is there? He reckoned he asked for them to be brought in though.
>@@(*&)
Redblossom:
if they are shy te and Gerry says they are whats the problem? ???
Translation please.
Gerry Mccann said the dogs are incredibly unreliable, so if anyone believes everything he says, there is no problem here is there? He reckoned he asked for them to be brought in though.
>@@(*&)
The Jersey farce proved, Grime and his doggies are as relevant as a Daily Star headline
Interesting Puffin but in his seeming agitation to get alot of *facts* and *truths* across, like somebody was chasing his tail or something, he was in one breath telling us Keela is not a cadaver dog and is trained to find human blood, whilst in many other breaths going on and on about how Keela the cadaver dog, can do this, cant do that, Keela the cadaver dog alerts this way, etc. I found that curious, still, food for thought I suppose, thanks for the link
8((()*/
Interesting Puffin but in his seeming agitation to get alot of *facts* and *truths* across, like somebody was chasing his tail or something, he was in one breath telling us Keela is not a cadaver dog and is trained to find human blood, whilst in many other breaths going on and on about how Keela the cadaver dog, can do this, cant do that, Keela the cadaver dog alerts this way, etc. I found that curious, still, food for thought I suppose, thanks for the linkI am afraid all I know about dogs is they have 4 legs and a tail, they slobber, poop where they stand, pee on anything that doesn't move, and hump men's legs. I don't happen to like them, as you have probably gathered. @)(++(*
8((()*/
There is confusion over what exactly a 'cadaver dog' is. They are called by Grime Enhanced Victim Recovery Dogs (EVRD). VRD are dogs that can smell either/or decayed flesh or blood- all you need when looking for victims. EVRD's are further trained to discriminate decaying flesh and blood dogs just decaying blood (neither react to fresh blood).
It is Grime's claim (not respected by all Dog Handlers and scientists) that dogs like Eddie and Morse can not only find bodoes and victims, but can also indicate non-physical presence (odor alone) of decay.
Not much of this has been tested in any peer reviewed journal in large enough experiments to tell us what is going on.
Interesting Puffin but in his seeming agitation to get alot of *facts* and *truths* across, like somebody was chasing his tail or something, he was in one breath telling us Keela is not a cadaver dog and is trained to find human blood, whilst in many other breaths going on and on about how Keela the cadaver dog, can do this, cant do that, Keela the cadaver dog alerts this way, etc. I found that curious, still, food for thought I suppose, thanks for the linkI am afraid all I know about dogs is they have 4 legs and a tail, they slobber, poop where they stand, pee on anything that doesn't move, and hump men's legs. I don't happen to like them, as you have probably gathered. @)(++(*
8((()*/
I know nothing about any dogs, breeds or abilities, whether as a police dog or any other use they can be put to. I have never had one as a pet and never wanted one.Interesting Puffin but in his seeming agitation to get alot of *facts* and *truths* across, like somebody was chasing his tail or something, he was in one breath telling us Keela is not a cadaver dog and is trained to find human blood, whilst in many other breaths going on and on about how Keela the cadaver dog, can do this, cant do that, Keela the cadaver dog alerts this way, etc. I found that curious, still, food for thought I suppose, thanks for the linkI am afraid all I know about dogs is they have 4 legs and a tail, they slobber, poop where they stand, pee on anything that doesn't move, and hump men's legs. I don't happen to like them, as you have probably gathered. @)(++(*
8((()*/
Yes, me too, I knew nothing about all the types of dogs that help police before reading on this case, truly remarkable creatures, they find things that police and scientists cant
Eddie and Keela were used not far from where i live. They picked up scent of death behind a sofa and blood. The guys wife had gone missing he swore she had run off. Anyway even without a body he was found guilty of her murder.
Eventually he did confess and said he had a row with his wife and struck her hard then strangled her, and he put her behind the sofa until the evening so he could move her. He lived on a big farm lots of acreage. He simply dug a huge hole with digger and put her in an empty large drainage pipe and buried her.....Cadavar dogs had been used in the area, but with the body in the pipe they never got wind of her scent.
I think the dogs are very accurate otherwise one mistake they have gone anyway to be used for other things.
Just because they indicated death and blood in apartment 5A it doesnt mean it was Maddy it could have been from somewhere else a transference or even perhaps brought in by someone..who knows. They cant say who died or who bled just that someone did.
My friend has been training dogs since 1974, not to just sniff stuff out, but for films and advertisements too.
I asked her about the accuracy of the sniffer dogs, and she told me she would say if they indicate then it is more likely 100 percent accurate. They go for rigorous training, and if they fail once they are never used again.
I will say this i have a jack russell from a pup. She started to want to lick my left leg and foot it was quite bizarre. A few weeks afterwards I lost the use in my left leg, and eventually after lots of tests was diagnosed with MS....weird.
Also dogs are used in sniffing out cancers very successfully too and are even trained to alert someone who is going into diabetic coma etc. Some diabetics actually have these dogs now to alert them. Dogs help blind people live a good life, they use their keen sight and keen nose to keep these people safe.
They find bodies buried and can sniff out drugs and explosives.
Eddie and Keela were used not far from where i live. They picked up scent of death behind a sofa and blood. The guys wife had gone missing he swore she had run off. Anyway even without a body he was found guilty of her murder.
Eventually he did confess and said he had a row with his wife and struck her hard then strangled her, and he put her behind the sofa until the evening so he could move her. He lived on a big farm lots of acreage. He simply dug a huge hole with digger and put her in an empty large drainage pipe and buried her.....Cadavar dogs had been used in the area, but with the body in the pipe they never got wind of her scent.
I think the dogs are very accurate otherwise one mistake they have gone anyway to be used for other things.
Just because they indicated death and blood in apartment 5A it doesnt mean it was Maddy it could have been from somewhere else a transference or even perhaps brought in by someone..who knows. They cant say who died or who bled just that someone did.
Tell me, if an explosives sniffer dog reacted on the plane you were about to board, would you?
If a dog trained to sniff out cancer on your breath gave a signal, would you get yourself checked out?
If your own dog kept sniffing one your moles would you get it checked out?
If you answer no, yes and yes .....?
Tell me, if an explosives sniffer dog reacted on the plane you were about to board, would you?
If a dog trained to sniff out cancer on your breath gave a signal, would you get yourself checked out?
If your own dog kept sniffing one your moles would you get it checked out?
If you answer no, yes and yes .....?
The scenarios you cite are not comparable because your examples are simple to check
1 A plane can be searched -. Either there is a bomb on the plane or there isn't.
2 You can take tests. Either you have cancer or you dont .
3. Your mole is able to be tested and is either benign or malignant. 1
.
Not so easy with an alert from a cadaver dog because with only a scent and no physical material residue to test you cannnot know......................................
1. Whose scent it is
2. Whether the scent was deposited recently or decades ago.
3. Whether the scent was from that spot or brought in from elsewhere by cross contamination
4. Whether the scent is from above ground or below ground.
5. Whether the scent is from that spot or has drifted from elsewhere and collected there.
6. Whether it is residual scent from decomposed body bits, i.e. fingernails, teeth, hair, semen etc. from a living person, or whether it is from an actual cadaver.
Which is why Martin Grime makes it clear that because of all those variables, without corroborating (testable) evidence it is not possible to prove whether a cadaver had ever been there or not.
Not to mention the proven unreliability of dogs.
Bit of a bold and general statement there.....if these dogs are proven as you state, yo be unreliable, cite when youre ready, police wouldnt use them, sigh
I have read this thread. Have you. All tests have a less than 100% reliability, even dogs. The most telling one, the one that involved cuing where no death scent was used tells me all I need to know.youre entitled to your opinion but it didnt answer my question
youre entitled to your opinion but it didnt answer my question
All tests have a reliability and an unreliability, even dogs. One test for cadaver dogs showed that there was a thirty percent false positive if handlers 'knew' which targets were 'contaminated'.
Good enough to me to show quite a high unreliability.
wheres the link for this test and 30 per cent out of 100 is not quite high by any standard
To have any argument whatsoever you will need to know the test results of EDDIE in this case.....you dont have them, therefore no argument.....
You are also libelling Grime here but thankfully its water off a ducks back......as it has no basis in any fact
Here is the really frightening result, and it is peer reviewed and statistically valid with a complete analysis!What has this to do with Prof Harrison MBE who supervised the canine searches in PDL ?
They set out to test the 'Clever Hans' effect.
There are no tests on Eddie or Keela done by an independent authority; so we must assume that the best they can have been is similar to other scent dogs.This is not true. Those dogs were certified on a regular basis. Remember they were called by Prof Harrison MBE, the UK specialist in missing persons.
I am not libelling Grime in any way. Where have I libelled him?
The Komar tests:This study isn't much relevant for the McCann case, since the dogs didn't alert outside.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10097372
"A 1998 study by Debra Komar at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, analyzed and interpreted the effectiveness of eight dog and handler teams at locating simulated animal scattered or scavenged human and animal remains among snow and leaf cover. Tests consisted of "blind searches" or trials in which handlers did not how many items to search for or where they were hidden. The items included dry human and animal bone, and gauze and small articles of clothing soaked in human decomposition fluids and then dried. The study revealed considerable variation in the success rates of the dog-handler teams. The individual dog-handler teams had success rates ranging from 55 to 95% over the trials, and the overall recovery rate for the trials was 81%."
Note range of 55-95 with median at 81%- two in ten reactions were errors on average. Note- peer reviwed and statistically valid.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/13194566_The_use_of_cadaver_dogs_in_locating_scattered_scavenged_human_remains_preliminary_field_test_results
What has this to do with Prof Harrison MBE who supervised the canine searches in PDL ?
This is not true. Those dogs were certified on a regular basis. Remember they were called by Prof Harrison MBE, the UK specialist in missing persons.
This study isn't much relevant for the McCann case, since the dogs didn't alert outside.
About longevity of human primary odours in a controlled environment
http://newyorksearchandrescue.org/download/Scents%20and%20Sense-Ability%20K9%20article.pdf (http://newyorksearchandrescue.org/download/Scents%20and%20Sense-Ability%20K9%20article.pdf)
Inside or out does not matter. What does is the low success rate.No, the scent isn't preserved as well outside than inside.
The highest claimed rate of one false result in ten; I suspect it is much lower.
The Clever Hans experiment is the most worrying indicating considerable handler cuing.
Certified does not include a valid test regime. It is an assessment of training and competence, not of accuracy. No such tests for Eddie or Keela have been published.Tests don't have to be published, these dogs and their handler came under the responsibility and caution of the late NPIA, there were not your neighbour's dogs, trained for fun during week ends with a bit of rotten pig.
Tests don't have to be published, these dogs and their handler came under the responsibility and caution of the late NPIA, there were not your neighbour's dogs, trained for fun during week ends with a bit of rotten pig.
As soon as the door was open the dog changed drastically its behaviour, which left no doubt for his handler. The volatile molecules had been caught by the nose's receptors of the dog. Much more than this couldn't be said. But that was certainly intelligence.
Which is considerably less than usable evidence. The science says that the dogs are unreliable- wrong in identifying the smell of death from one time in ten to every time.
If the dogs were so accurate, the MP and PJ would not be wasting their time investigating abduction.
Which is considerably less than usable evidence. The science says that the dogs are unreliable- wrong in identifying the smell of death from one time in ten to every time.Aiofe, it is not "considerably less than usable evidence", it is simply no evidence !
If the dogs were so accurate, the MP and PJ would not be wasting their time investigating abduction.
Aiofe, it is not "considerably less than usable evidence", it is simply no evidence !
No remains, no case !
Sorry to split hairs, but any claimed fact or object is evidence. Whether or not it is usable, reliable, acceptable in court etc is a matter for discussion, but all facts and objects are evidence.That's not what Prof Harrison says in one of his three reports : it calls it "intelligence" and that sounds fair to me.
That's not what Prof Harrison says in one of his three reports : it calls it "intelligence" and that sounds fair to me.I recommend a good dictionary.
Which is considerably less than usable evidence. The science says that the dogs are unreliable- wrong in identifying the smell of death from one time in ten to every time.
If the dogs were so accurate, the MP and PJ would not be wasting their time investigating abduction.
If the dogs are as unreliable as you suggest, why were they paid more than a Chief of police ?
Indeed, why would they be used at ALL ?
The dogs' evidence ( and it IS evidence, regardless of there being no conclusive forensic material found ) has always been, and remains, the biggest thorn in the McCanns' side
They were not- that was a tabloid myth/lie. Unless you can provide a cite.
They are indicative- they have the ability possibly to increase above pure chance a location to search for usable evidence. Their handler agrees.
And yet, despite an international search for a legal precedent regarding the 'unreliability, of cadaver dogs the only case the McCanns' lawyers could come up with was Zapata
Gerry confidently recited the Judge's findings ( that the dogs were unreliable ) giving a detailed description of the tests the dogs were set ... and the statistical conclusion
Except, of course, Zapata subsequently confessed that he had murdered his wife ( and chopped her body up before disposing of the parts in various landfill sites )
The ONLY case they were ever able to cite as 'proof' of cadaver dogs' unreliability ( and they had to go as far as the USA to find it ) ... and it turned out the dog was right all along !
There are several scientific investigations, none of which support infallibility.
Zapata is one case among many. Eddie and kEELA WERE NOT CONFIRMED TO BE RIGHT IN pDl OR jERSEY.
What do you make of the Clever Hans experiment- 30% positive IDs to no scent at all- just because the handlers thought they knew which place was contaminated.
The one about the horse that could do sums ?
Xrist ... even the McCanns weren't desperate enough to cite that as some sort of evidence against the cadaver dog that alerted in an apartment where a missing child was last seen
If the dogs are as unreliable as you suggest, why were they paid more than a Chief of police ?
Indeed, why would they be used at ALL ?
The dogs' evidence ( and it IS evidence, regardless of there being no conclusive forensic material found ) has always been, and remains, the biggest thorn in the McCanns' side
Prof Harrison MBE and Mr Grime are experts and sufficiently aware of the Rosenthal effect to avoid it.
http://www.freep.com/article/20121004/NEWS01/310040204/ (http://www.freep.com/article/20121004/NEWS01/310040204/)
Your statement is unsupported and does nothing to counter the scientific findings.I reckon I respect more the British institutions than you do !
I reckon I respect more the British institutions than you do !
That has nothing to do with the argument.
How do you account for the dogs in the experiment reacting where their handlers expected them to react?
Id give it up if I were you Aiofe, we have had the dog discussions here for a year plus, covered so many angles, nothing you posted is relevant.....or changes anything....dont try so hard, it wont work because, simply, it cannot....
I disagree Red. There are still a lot of people out there who think that 'dogs don't lie. And that's because they are not aware of all the relevant information there is about them. The more this information is made public the better IMO.
Dogs do lie and give false alerts when they are influenced by the beliefs of the handlers. And that is a proven fact.
oh dear Benice i have heard and readand anlysed it all,you will just have to go round the mulberry bush again because I am certainly not going to.....and that is NOT bias...its informed decision ta
That's Ok Red - I'm not asking you to. I was just explaining why I disagree with your opinion that Aiofe's posts are not relevant.
The purpose here, I'm afraid, is to mix in the same bag amateur handlers and professional ones in order to discredit the seconds thanks to the errors of the first.
Old trick.
Mr Grime would certainly not work for the FBI if his dogs weren't reliable. His reputation depends on the accuracy of his dogs. The money issue follows.
Aiofe is concentrating on how and when and why dogs might be wrong...unbalanced IMO....and biased so obviously.....its utterly boring now
Its like chinese death by a thousand cuts...No need for it..police use them all the time and get great results...they dont need some forum poster or some scientist alledgedly or GerryMccann to tell them they shouldnt bother.........LOL see ya
Oh eta
Lets not forget Gerrys little PORKIE... It was HIM who asked thecadaver dogs to bebrought in
@)(++(*
If youcant see through that LIE benice well I dont know......
Id give it up if I were you Aiofe, we have had the dog discussions here for a year plus, covered so many angles, nothing you posted is relevant.....or changes anything....dont try so hard, it wont work because, simply, it cannot....
I respect Prof Harrison MBE, who advised to send for these particular dogs and supervised the whole operation.
http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_4.2.pdf (http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/J_Homicide_MII/J_Homicide_4.2.pdf)
oh dear Benice i have heard and readand anlysed it all,you will just have to go round the mulberry bush again because I am certainly not going to.....and that is NOT bias...its informed decision ta
The purpose here, I'm afraid, is to mix in the same bag amateur handlers and professional ones in order to discredit the seconds thanks to the errors of the first.
Old trick.
Mr Grime would certainly not work for the FBI if his dogs weren't reliable. His reputation depends on the accuracy of his dogs. The money issue follows.
Aiofe is concentrating on how and when and why dogs might be wrong...unbalanced IMO....and biased so obviously.....its utterly boring now
Its like chinese death by a thousand cuts...No need for it..police use them all the time and get great results...they dont need some forum poster or some scientist alledgedly or GerryMccann to tell them they shouldnt bother.........LOL see ya
Oh eta
Lets not forget Gerrys little PORKIE... It was HIM who asked thecadaver dogs to bebrought in
@)(++(*
If youcant see through that LIE benice well I dont know......
Whenever I start to feel a bit swamped by the relentlessly churned out 'scientific studies' and ream after ream of statistics, I remind myself of three undeniable 'truths'
1 ) A little girl disappeared without trace, never to be seen again
2 ) A cadaver dog with a history of success was brought in
3 ) The cadaver dog alerted in the last place the child was seen alive
No amount of bluff and bluster can distract from the very simple conclusion that those three truths deliver like a bolo punch
They are facts, but not total truths.
We know that it is a fact and a truth that cadaver dogs do make errors. It is quite possible that no death occurred. Where does that leave your facts.
Whenever I start to feel a bit swamped by the relentlessly churned out 'scientific studies' and ream after ream of statistics, I remind myself of three undeniable 'truths'
1 ) A little girl disappeared without trace, never to be seen again
2 ) A cadaver dog with a history of success was brought in
3 ) The cadaver dog alerted in the last place the child was seen alive
No amount of bluff and bluster can distract from the very simple conclusion that those three truths deliver like a bolo punch
It is the truth that a little girl disappeared without trace, never to be seen again
It is the truth that a cadaver dog with a history of success was brought in
It is the truth that the cadaver dog alerted in the place where the child was last seen alive
How silly of you to deny that which is undeniable
It's also an undeniable truth that because a cadaver dog alerts at a certain spot - it does not guarantee that a dead body had ever been in that place - for the numerous reasons which Martin Grime has given us.You don't seem to have listened to Mr Grime's comment in the beginning of the 5A examination, Benice.
It's also an undeniable truth that because a cadaver dog alerts at a certain spot - it does not guarantee that a dead body had ever been in that place - for the numerous reasons which Martin Grime has given us.
It is the truth that a little girl disappeared without trace, never to be seen again
It is the truth that a cadaver dog with a history of success was brought in
It is the truth that the cadaver dog alerted in the place where the child was last seen alive
How silly of you to deny that which is undeniable
doesnt it just...not forgetting plain common sense and odds
And it is indicative circumstantial evidence...there is no way around that, so aiofe aoff you go with your accusations of bias...youare not the first person on this or any other forum to quote stuff...with YOUR bias, we have had many posters with and without and have read it all for yearsand come to an informed decision of what the dog alerts could or do mean, or dont mean, we haveread harrison grime and others and read of various cases, we dont need educating at all anymore or pontificating to ta very much...no need to bust your guts for anyone at all lol as its totally fruitless now, youmissed the boat
You don't seem to have listened to Mr Grime's comment in the beginning of the 5A examination, Benice.
Not all sniffers dogs are good, but those whose handler intends to be professional have to be excellent. Mr Grime isn't "error-proof" as nobody is perfect, but he and Prof Harrison have proved to be honest people, respecting the consensus between professionals that a cadaver dog's alert can be a helpful investigative tool but should not be considered as evidence at a criminal trial when it has not been corroborated by scientific verification of the presence of human remains.
Grime is totally honest- he states under oath that a dog's reaction is meaningless without further forensic evidence.Now that you have admitted that Mr Grime is an honest person (he doesn't need to be under oath to be honest), listen to what he says in the video !
At least he knows the dog's limitations. Unlike dog fanatics!
But your post is resplendent with assumptions. Biased assumptions.
I have quoted all research I can find that shows anything to do with scent dogs. Nothing suggests that they are anything near infallible.Have you ?
Have you ?
Then try to read this one
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd (http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd)
Now that you have admitted that Mr Grime is an honest person (he doesn't need to be under oath to be honest), listen to what he says in the video !
Mr Grime says that, for instance, the alert in the corner of the bedroom doesn't mean necessarily that a body was right there. He's alluding 1) to a notion of scent cone which is well developed in the Cadaver Dog Handbook and 2) to the extreme volatility of cadaver scent molecules chased by draughts and trapped in corners where they end up penetrating in porous material like paint.
He never claims that there was a body anywhere in places Eddie and Keela searched.Are you suggesting he and Prof Harrison MBE thought people could have lived in this flat in the company of a corpse ?
Are you suggesting he and Prof Harrison MBE thought people could have lived in this flat in the company of a corpse ?
Don't be silly. The reactions of the dogs is quite in line with no corpse ever being anywhere that they reacted. Mr Grimes evidence is quite clear that reactions may be unsupported by evidence. Both Grimes and Harrison are very aware that the academic research shows that dogs do have a measurable failure rate.
Don't be silly. The reactions of the dogs is quite in line with no corpse ever being anywhere that they reacted. Mr Grimes evidence is quite clear that reactions may be unsupported by evidence. Both Grimes and Harrison are very aware that the academic research shows that dogs do have a measurable failure rate.Prof Harrison knew that no corpse was inhabiting the flat, whether inserted in a wall or under the floor. Therefore he knew that finding remains was excluded.
Prof Harrison knew that no corpse was inhabiting the flat, whether inserted in a wall or under the floor. Therefore he knew that finding remains was excluded.
As you don't seem to realise, volatile odorous molecules, absolutely impossible to catch (though the thesis I sent a link to explains how works the device built to trap those molecules), remain in the air of a "controlled environment" like a flat. Prof Harrison knew these molecules remain there for quite a long time. This is why he sent for two exceptional dogs.
Had the cadaver dog not alerted in the 5A (as in any other flat occupied by the group, by the McCanns after the disappearance, nor in the Murat villa and the McCann villa), Prof Harrison would have been happy to exclude a death in the flat.
As the dog exhibited immediate excitation and alerted in four places, somebody had died in the flat or a dead person had transited there, but who ? That's the rub.
Just to be clear ( given your penchant for statistics )
You do accept that, statistically, the cadaver dog was more likely to have been accurate in his alert in Apartment 5A, than innacurate ?
... and that, consequently, it is ( statisically ) more likely that a dead body had been in the apartment where the missing child was last seen, than for there not to have been ?
Just to be clear
Prof Harrison knew that no corpse was inhabiting the flat, whether inserted in a wall or under the floor. Therefore he knew that finding remains was excluded.
As you don't seem to realise, volatile odorous molecules, absolutely impossible to catch (though the thesis I sent a link to explains how works the device built to trap those molecules), remain in the air of a "controlled environment" like a flat. Prof Harrison knew these molecules remain there for quite a long time. This is why he sent for two exceptional dogs.
Had the cadaver dog not alerted in the 5A (as in any other flat occupied by the group, by the McCanns after the disappearance, nor in the Murat villa and the McCann villa), Prof Harrison would have been happy to exclude a death in the flat.
As the dog exhibited immediate excitation and alerted in four places, somebody had died in the flat or a dead person had transited there, but who ? That's the rub.
So don't you believe Grime when he says his dogs cannot distinguish between the scent from a dead person or the same scent from various body bits and bodily fluids from a live person?
If Eddie had spent the same amount of time in other apartments/cars as he did in 5A and the Renault - he may have alerted in one or more of those other places. Or conversely, if Eddie had only been allowed to spend the same small amount of time in 5A and the Renault as he did in those other places, he many not have alerted in 5A or at the Renault.
For example:- After 30 seconds (i.e. the maximum time spent on the other cars) Eddie had not alerted. After 30 seconds spent on the Renault the result was the same - Eddie had not alerted.
Unless the same amount of time is spent at each site/object - then clearly the tests cannot be regarded as unbiased.
The number of times Eddie was called back is an excellent example of the Clever Hans effect.@)(++(*
Ittakes two reactions- an alert from the VRD dog and a non alert from the blood dog as Eddie reacts to blood from a person who is still alive as one of his behaviours.Relax, nothing proves the body scent was from Madeleine.
The number of times Eddie was called back is an excellent example of the Clever Hans effect. Grime knew that that was the McCann's car becasue of the posters. If you analyse the video, Eddie was called back about ten times (never more than once with any other car) and spent more time with the McCann's car than any others, even before alerting, meanwhile obviously alerting in distress to a blank wall. A defense lawyer (and an animal psychologist) would have torn the evidence in the garage to shreds!
So don't you believe Grime when he says his dogs cannot distinguish between the scent from a dead person or the same scent from various body bits and bodily fluids from a live person?Eddie can't distinguish between the body of X and the body of Y. He can't distinguish between the scent of X's remains, discovered after days, and the scent the remains of X left where X died, before X's body is taken to the incinerator.
If Eddie had spent the same amount of time in other apartments/cars as he did in 5A and the Renault - he may have alerted in one or more of those other places. Or conversely, if Eddie had only been allowed to spend the same small amount of time in 5A and the Renault as he did in those other places, he many not have alerted in 5A or at the Renault.
For example:- After 30 seconds (i.e. the maximum time spent on the other cars) Eddie had not alerted. After 30 seconds spent on the Renault the result was the same - Eddie had not alerted.
Unless the same amount of time is spent at each site/object - then clearly the tests cannot be regarded as unbiased.
Relax, nothing proves the body scent was from Madeleine.
As the dog exhibited immediate excitation and alerted in four places, somebody had died in the flat or a dead person had transited there, but who ? That's the rub.
@)(++(*
Relax, nothing proves the body scent was from Madeleine.
As the dog exhibited immediate excitation and alerted in four places, somebody had died in the flat or a dead person had transited there, but who ? That's the rub.
Eddie can't distinguish between the body of X and the body of Y. He can't distinguish between the scent of X's remains, discovered after days, and the scent the remains of X left where X died, before X's body is taken to the incinerator.
About the time to spend here and there, I'd leave it to the experts if I were you, Benice.
This is far to be the first time you're spreading the subliminal myth that Mr Grime and Prof Harrison crooked the Portuguese Justice !
"As the dog exhibited immediate excitation and alerted in four places, somebody had died in the flat or a dead person had transited there, but who ?" is completely false.No. Listen or read Mr Grime.
Eddie cannot tell the difference between dried blood from a currently living person and the presence of cadaver odour!He picked up the scent immediately after the door was open, he was still outside. The scent was in 5A's air and only there. Not in 5B, 5D, 5H, 4G, Flores villa, Murat villa.
No. Listen or read Mr Grime.
He picked up the scent immediately after the door was open, he was still outside. The scent was in 5A's air and only there. Not in 5B, 5D, 5H, 4G, Flores villa, Murat villa.
Eddie can't distinguish between the body of X and the body of Y. He can't distinguish between the scent of X's remains, discovered after days, and the scent the remains of X left where X died, before X's body is taken to the incinerator.
About the time to spend here and there, I'd leave it to the experts if I were you, Benice.
This is far to be the first time you're spreading the subliminal myth that Mr Grime and Prof Harrison crooked the Portuguese Justice !
Read the AG report. You'll see the AG was concerned with that scent.. Perhaps he would have dropped the hypothesis of homicide and concealment of body, if Eddie hadn't alerted.
Once again Anne you accuse me of spreading myths and this is by no means the first time. I have asked you several time to stop spreading this lie about me. I have never reported anyone but if you do it again I shall have no alternative but to report you. Your persistent personal accusations and attacks on me are against forum rules.Report me as you like it.
I do not lie or create myths or spread myths. I post facts and opinions in line with forum rules. No-one is under any obligation to agree with me.
Report me as you like it.
Your insistence in pretending that Mr Grime (and his supervisor, Prof Harrison) didn't allow Eddie the time to eventually react similarly in the other places is false. There is an obvious reason why Eddie spent less time in the other places. You know it, it has been pointed to you many times, but you deliberately choose to ignore it because your objective is to discredit, finally, the NPIA and the PJ which trusted them.
Report me as you like it.
Your insistence in pretending that Mr Grime (and his supervisor, Prof Harrison) didn't allow Eddie the time to eventually react similarly in the other places is false. There is an obvious reason why Eddie spent less time in the other places. You know it, it has been pointed to you many times, but you deliberately choose to ignore it because your objective is to discredit, finally, the NPIA and the PJ which trusted them.
Eddie alerts to dried blood from a living person- do you agree?
No, he never said that- you need to listen or read it!
As you suggest that Mr Grime is the source for this, you will have no problem providing the link for the reference- we await your production of it.....
To begin with I have not insisted on anything. That's a lie. I have never even mentioned Prof. Harrison in any of my posts. The records show that more time was spent on ''McCann related'' items than on others. I have every right to have an opinion based on that fact.You take care not to mention Mark Harrison, because 1) he's a professor and 2) he is an MBE.
You take care not to mention Mark Harrison, because 1) he's a professor and 2) he is an MBE.
But as Prof Harrison MBE supervised the dog operation, he was there, you attack him indirectly with your supposed "opinion", that, I maintain it, in this case is a myth.
As long as you'll spread that discrediting myth about differences of time that have a logic and reasonable explanation you don't ignore, I'll denounce it as a deliberate attempt to cheat posters.
Report me as you like it.
Your insistence in pretending that Mr Grime (and his supervisor, Prof Harrison) didn't allow Eddie the time to eventually react similarly in the other places is false. There is an obvious reason why Eddie spent less time in the other places. You know it, it has been pointed to you many times, but you deliberately choose to ignore it because your objective is to discredit, finally, the NPIA and the PJ which trusted them.
I saw the video too Anne. Grime might as well have put a marker on that Scenic, the poor dog was exasperated at being called back so many times. The entire operation was an exercise in futility IMO.The rental car was new, only one user before IIRC.
As for the car itself, what a cock up!! The police driver was unprotected and they drove it to the underground car park. A rental car which hundreds of people have previously used and they expected to find something unique to the McCanns??
The rental car was new, only one user before IIRC.
But that's not the topic. Neither you nor me are handlers, so we can't interpret correctly what we see on those videos, we have no choice but to believe what the handler and his supervisor said or to disbelieve. I'm happy with the credits of Mr Grime and Prof Harrison, the AG was too.
Nevertheless, not to confirm but to understand, I read a lot on this subject (I can send you links if you wish so) and especially on the physiology of dog's nose and on the notion of scent cone.
You take care not to mention Mark Harrison, because 1) he's a professor and 2) he is an MBE.
But as Prof Harrison MBE supervised the dog operation, he was there, you attack him indirectly with your supposed "opinion", that, I maintain it, in this case is a myth.
As long as you'll spread that discrediting myth about differences of time that have a logic and reasonable explanation you don't ignore, I'll denounce it as a deliberate attempt to cheat posters.
Ok, a couple of points that haven't been made:
This wasn't an experiment, it was a live exercise. If it was an experiment it would have been useless for all the reasons stated. I.e spending more time in one area than others.
My biggest problem with scent dogs was handler bias. I'm aware of teh clever hans effect. I've posted an experiment with corpse scent on carpets previously which was blinded and there was still an 80-90% success rate.
On first watching the garage video I dismissed it as a clear example of handler bias. I then watched Mr Grimes do exactly the same in the apartment with one of the single beds. He called Eddie back repeatedly, over and over again, both on the bed and under the bed. Eddie never signalled at the bed. If the dog was going to be badgered in to giving a false positive, he'd had been forgiven for doing so at that bed.
Mr Grimes makes a lot of money from having accurate Cadaver dogs. He will lose work if his dogs provide false signals. He knows his dogs. If he thought that encouraging his dog back to one place repeatedly would cause the dog to give a false signal, he wouldn't do it. A false positive would lose him work, no bark wouldn't.
You understand neither dogs nor the Clever Hans effect.
If a handler repeatedly calls a dog back- maybe ten times!- then that is handler bias.
2)" he is an MBE."I reckon you conveniently dropped the "professor" part ! Are your lollipop ladies professors ?
Don't tell me what I do or do not understand.Mr Aiofe is on my ignore list, for insisting in ignorance, but when someone answers him, I see.
I reckon you conveniently dropped the "professor" part ! Are your lollipop ladies professors ?@)(++(*
Mr Aiofe is on my ignore list, for insisting in ignorance, but when someone answers him, I see.
The Clever Hans effect has nothing to do here, what handlers are aware of is something else, called the Rosenthal effect. It is the unconscious tendency for results to conform experimenter's expectations. Prof Harrison and Mr Grime had nothing to gain with alerts of the dogs. In itself the lack of alert would have been much more informative.
I reckon you conveniently dropped the "professor" part ! Are your lollipop ladies professors ?
I haven't heard of that! Thank you, I'll Google it now.
I agree that Mr Grime had nothing to gain if the dogs alerted!
I am not disputing the relèvance of him Being a professor. I just do not understand why over the last few months you have continually made reference to his award of an MBE as if this enhances his credentials in his field of workI didn't invent this title. No, it doesn't give him more credits, but I observed that posters criticized Mr Grime and not Prof Harrison who was in fact the head of the operation. For a time they even ignored he was a professor. So I deduced MBE impressed the British !
You are certainly NOT on an ignore list. You still have many cites, references and supports outstanding for your erroneous claims.
What erroneous claims have I made? If I can't provide a cite I usually edit my comment to say so. Can you be more specific please?
I could be wrong Cariad, but I think Aiofe may have got you mixed up with Anne.
What erroneous claims have I made? If I can't provide a cite I usually edit my comment to say so. Can you be more specific please?
Sorry, it is Anne making erroneous claims.
As far as your comment about Grime having nothing to gain- cuing is often unconscious- the handler does not realise they are doing it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482105/Madeleine-McCanns-consult-American-lawyers-cadaver-dog-evidence.htmlThey are more pragmatic in the US...
But then :
http://host.madison.com/news/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-years-the-former-madison-man/article_3f7a7f4f-cb83-5869-b9c6-23532bc49a4e.html
Seems at the beginning of the case police were similarly unable to charge Zapata through lack of evidence.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482105/Madeleine-McCanns-consult-American-lawyers-cadaver-dog-evidence.html
But then :
http://host.madison.com/news/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-years-the-former-madison-man/article_3f7a7f4f-cb83-5869-b9c6-23532bc49a4e.html
Seems at the beginning of the case police were similarly unable to charge Zapata through lack of evidence.
What makes sense is the trail the dogs found indicating Madeleine came through the front way as she said on Sept 6th. That's why tracking dogs are used.The dogs don't work backwards.
The dogs don't work backwards.
How can you track someone's last known position from 5A if you're not going backwards to the route where they came in to 5A from?Dogs go forwards, from the weakest to the freshest scent. Hence the importance to let them start from the exact place where the missing person was last seen.
How can you track someone's last known position from 5A if you're not going backwards to the route where they came in from?
Tracker dogs ?What dogs do you mean, The GNR sniffer dogs? or ours?
GNR tracking dogs that searched the next day. Anne makes a good point that they should have did another search from the start/tapas bar of her last known route back to the apartment at 5.40.
"When she finished jogging, at around 5:20/5:30 p.m., she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were having dinner at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the area by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over, at around 5.30 p.m. They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m., earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00 p.m."
The GNR used rescue dogs and tracking dogs. The first smell the air for living lost or harmed persons, the others are given to smell an object with the missing individual's scent.
GNR tracking dogs that searched the next day. Anne makes a good point that they should have done another search from the start/tapas bar of her last known route back to the apartment at 5.40.
"When she finished jogging, at around 5:20/5:30 p.m., she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine who were having dinner at separate tables. Madeleine had been taken to the area by the nannies. Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over, at around 5.30 p.m. They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m., earlier than usual, because Madeleine was tired, their other friends were at the beach and Gerry had an all-male tennis game at 6:00 p.m."
Given that Madeleine had walked around the complex for several days it is not surprising that the sniffer dogs found her scent. My point is though that it would be impossible to differentiate between that innocent scent and that related to any abduction.
Can I just add, hope everyone had a lovely Christmas! 8((()*/
But didn't Kate carry the child, because she was tired ? Tracker has its nose to the ground, so doubt if that would work anyway. If she walked out the front or side door it should track her, so its unlikely she wandered off.
It is revealing that the GNR sniffer dogs didn't find her scent at the patio door.How do you know that, John ?
But didn't Kate carry the child, because she was tired ? Tracker has its nose to the ground, so doubt if that would work anyway. If she walked out the front or side door it should track her, so its unlikely she wandered off.The dog has its nose on the ground because cells and volatile molecules fall on the ground whether coming from hands, head, knees... A barefoot person is the best for the dog. Madeleine is supposed to have disappeared barefoot.
Given that Madeleine had walked around the complex for several days it is not surprising that the sniffer dogs found her scent. My point is though that it would be impossible to differentiate between that innocent scent and that related to any abduction.As the departure point was the main door, the route taken by all dogs seems to indicate it was the strongest track (vs an eventual route through the car park on which there's no certain statement). It is a pity the door-window wasn't offered as a point of departure for the dogs.
As the departure point was the main door, the route taken by all dogs seems to indicate it was the strongest track (vs an eventual route through the car park on which there's no certain statement). It is a pity the door-window wasn't offered as a point of departure for the dogs.
What seems clear to me is that if Smithman (getting out through the main door) carried an alive Madeleine, the dogs hadn't turned around the building. If Smithman went out through the door-window and then the path alley carrying an alive Madeleine, the dogs had turned right, not left, when arriving on the path alley.
The cadaver dog only alerted at the back not the front so that's a good indication on where she left from using that hypothesis.What do you mean, Pathfinder ? Eddie smelt the scent he had been trained to as soon as the (main) door was opened. He alerted on the flower bed, seeming to mean that a body had been lying there for while. Can a cadaver dog follow the trail of a carried body ? Possibly, but how long after ?
The flower bed alerted by Eddie was in the back garden not the front?"Back" and "front" are confusing : when you look at the building, actually the north part seems to be the back and the south one the front as long as you imagine the door-window is a door (can be opened and shut from either side).
"Back" and "front" are confusing : when you look at the building, actually the north part seems to be the back and the south one the front as long as you imagine the door-window is a door (can be opened and shut from either side).
I don't see how the flowerbed's alert means that Smithman left through the door-window (though he likely did so, dark and desert alley, except for a few steps easy to control).
Yes I understand what you mean, it can get confusing. Yeah back means path side/tapas side. To get to the flower bed you have to descend the stairs into the garden so unless Madeleine fell from the balcony, she would have to be moved there before leaving IMO. Check coast is clear scenario.If Madeleine had fallen from the balcony, she should have remained there at least for an hour for Eddie to alert. A lot of time before finding her. And it could be an accident, sleepwalking, not really neglect.
p.s. also interesting scent indicated outside parent's bedroom patio doors and nothing at the main back patio door. Eddie was very interested in sniffing that wall/climbing plant. Hypothesis - she left the apartment from the wardrobe through bedroom patio door.
If Madeleine had fallen from the balcony, she should have remained there at least for an hour for Eddie to alert. A lot of time before finding her. And it could be an accident, sleepwalking, not really neglect.
The order wardrobe corner, balcony, flowerbed seems more plausible. It is possible that rain or cleaning water dragged the volatile molecules towards the flowerbed.
How do you know that, John ?
It is revealing that the GNR sniffer dogs didn't find her scent at the patio door.
she may have been placed down briefly at the flower bed to check all was clear.This flowerbed had no flowers when I saw it, it's more leaf-mould that would stick.
Didn't all the dog handlers give statements to the effect that her scent was only detected from the front door.
No. They likely ignored that the door-window had been left open and used like a door.
A carried child will leave virtually no scent
Why ? I spoke to a handler and he said the carried child would leave scent, a fortiori if barefoot.
and by the time the GNR dogs arrived any residual scent there was was well gone, blown away by the breeze that morning.
The first dog to pick up her scent did it at 2am.
My belief is that the scent the dogs detected hours after Madeleine was found to be missing was scent laid down by her as she walked out of the apartment with her parents.
When ? And why would that scent be protected from the wind ?
Ergo, if she had merely walked out the patio door and down the steps to the road the sniffer dogs would have been on it instantly.
Perhaps but only if the door-window had been opened.We'll never know.
What Eddie found in the flower bed was probably cat poo.
A monkey escaped from casa Niobe. Perhaps it died there.
The flower bed was visible from the tapas,Are you kidding ?
That's what I was thinking. It is impossible to see the flower bed from the tapas bar.It's also impossible to see from the tapas bar or from the bottom of the steps someone lying on the balcony, in front of the south bedroom.
How do you know that, John ?
Didn't all the dog handlers give statements to the effect that her scent was only detected from the front door. Apologies if I got that wrong as it is a while since I read them.
A carried child will leave virtually no scent and by the time the GNR dogs arrived any residual scent there was was well gone, blown away by the breeze that morning. My belief is that the scent the dogs detected hours after Madeleine was found to be missing was scent laid down by her as she walked out of the apartment with her parents.
Ergo, if she had merely walked out the patio door and down the steps to the road the sniffer dogs would have been on it instantly.
What Eddie found in the flower bed was probably cat poo.
If Eddie alerted at the flower bed and knowing that Eddie could detect scent from a couple of feet underground then why didn't they dig down?Perhaps they would have if the alert had been the strongest there.
If Eddie alerted at the flower bed and knowing that Eddie could detect scent from a couple of feet underground then why didn't they dig down?
This is why I wanted to see the footage (if it exists) when they went back the next day in the daylight to do a further checks at the flower bed. It is hard to get the full facts from the night time footage - Grime said he wanted to come back the next day as further checks were required. I know Eddie was very interested in the balcony outside the parents bedroom and he was sniffing that wall/climbing plant a lot as you can see in the footage. He was not interested in the main back patio door entrance. He alerted in the flower bed in the garden. I believe some climbing plant branches were collected for possible evidence. Now scent shouldn't be collected in the flower bed at the bottom of the steps unless there is a possible reason for it e.g. a body being there only for a short time i.e. light scent detected.
The cadaver body hypothesis sequence:
1. Behind Sofa
2. Wardrobe
3. Exit through Parent's Bedroom Patio Door to Balcony
4. Down steps to flower bed
5. Exit through gate.
Thanks yeah they've say the front which is actually the back. The garden/patio/flower beds is at the back of the apartment which you access going down the back steps i.e. tapas bar side. This is referred to as the front in that report which is incorrect. The front door with the key is the north side by the car park with no garden.
It would be better, though too late, to speak of north and south sides. There's no flower bed on the north side. The flowerbed is not at the bottom of the steps. A Bougainvilliers is growing there.
So the flower beds that I am looking at are on the area behind the wall separating the main door from the car park
This must be what was discussed about the tracker dogs heading for lote 6 apartments car park across the road
I have to say that I think the police and all the help given by, villagers, helicopters, volunteer planes flown in line along the area, boats, motorbikes, extra dogs to assist in search, done a fantastic job of searching and all the police had a 7 day cancellation
on leave days
Anyway here is the confusing bit and it makes me think that there is a fair possibility she would have been abducted through the unlocked front door(by car park) and transported to that car park
- Completing the internal search of Block 5 - the verandas of access to the apartments - and when outside, the dog turned toward [directed itself to] Block 4. However, at the corner of Block 5, it turned left heading for the path between the building and the leisure area - pools and restaurant - going on to turn left [again], i.e. going around the building, setting out for the main street, crossing the road to the wall of Block 6. There, it sniffed the bottom, turned to the right - going down the road - taking itself to the car park next to Block 6 where its search [took it] to a lamppost where it then became confused and stopped the search. According to the GNR team this situation could be due to the fact that the strongest concentration of smells on that path, due to it being a little more preserved from the wind and "protected" between walls, it being certain that when it arrived at the main street and turned to the right, there was a major dispersal of odours, causing the dog to lose interest in continuing the search.
- The second dog was submitted to the same operation, also showing interest at door of 5J, namely it scratched with it front paws at the veranda parapet and lifted its head to sniff the air to find a scent. As noted above, this interest was conditioned by various things, it being certain that the dog sensed a strong odour in that place and wanted to check that [if] he had found the intended scent there.
- After the first search the two rubbish bags were removed from 5H so that during the second one there was no smell of rubbish, and the [second] dog showed no interest at the door of that apartment.
- Outside, the dog immediately followed the same path as the first, taking itself to the car park next to Block 6 where it also lost interest in the search.
- It is true to say that the dogs effectively showed interest in the above-mentioned apartments, without giving an indication needed to their handler that they had [found] the presence of the trail of the missing child. It is also certain that the course that they made to the car park next to Block 6 was done without hesitation and in a most convincing manner.
Maybe if discovered it's accidental death from a fall from balcony.Could be. But how would you explain the scent on the balcony ?
Very interesting, anna.Even more, perhaps, if you're aware that Rex and Zarus did that route on the 8th of May, around 23:45, i.e 5 days after the disappearance.
Could be. But how would you explain the scent on the balcony ?
So the flower beds that I am looking at are on the area behind the wall separating the main door from the car park
This must be what was discussed about the tracker dogs heading for lote 6 apartments car park across the road
My original thought was body hidden in the climbing plant on the wall where Eddie's got his head inside on the balcony. They found branches which I think broke off and fell into the flower bed below where Eddie alerted.The climbing plant is a bougainvilliers, it's not strong enough to support much weight.
The climbing plant is a bougainvilliers, it's not strong enough to support much weight.
Found it - look at the lower wall height inside the climbing plant. Body hidden on top of the small wall inside climbing plant. That is where Eddie was interested.Can you find out when this picture was done ? The grade is removed, perhaps to be painted.
(http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/notwviewfrompatio.jpg)
Can you find out when this picture was done ? The grade is removed, perhaps to be painted.
Without a grade it might be possible, but with not with the grade.
Can you say with absolute certainty ferryman that what the dogs indicated was wrong ?
If so, provide proof.
Stephen..its the teapot argument again
I am well aware of that.
However, as I am sure you are well aware ferryman, in any of his guises, has made consistent attacks on Martin Grimes.
Why ?
Because a lot of posters misunderstand the dogs alerts? Grime says that the dogs alerts have no evidential value themselves...thats good enough for me
Because a lot of posters misunderstand the dogs alerts? Grime says that the dogs alerts have no evidential value themselves...thats good enough for me
Can you provide the link to his rogatory interview where he states exactly that.
I have been told that he said positive forensic indications were made. >@@(*&)
im afraid you have been told wrong.,..its in the mccan files...he says that without corroboration the alerts have no value and could have arisen due to several differrent scenarios...Im sure red knows exactly where the statement is
copied from McCann files
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'
contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating
evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without
any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert
indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
I have just been sent this.......
'From his rogatory in 2008
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I have just been sent this.......
'From his rogatory in 2008
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I have just been sent this.......
'From his rogatory in 2008
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
I have just been sent this.......
'From his rogatory in 2008
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
cant find that statement anywhere on that link
Correct. I posted about this a couple weeks ago against misleading claims that Grime had stated the dog alerts had no value in this case, and got ignored, something he never actually never said, good post
8((()*/
It's in there though 8)-)))
Sorry but you continue to avoid giving the correct link...lets have the full quote as well... I guarantee red is WRONG
What's the relevance of doggies to the opening of the investigation?
Oh dear, is someone having kittens in thread for some unfathomable reason?
Read the page 8)--))
I've read the page..I don't see this statement.... .why don't you just copy the whole paragraph and not just one sentence...certainly blood was found on the key fob but the alerts re cadaver contaminant were not corroborated
It's only the third paragraph 8()-000(
Thank you....so...which alerts were corroborated...all of them ...some of them....one of them...this is important as posters are accusing the McCanns of quite serious crimes
Davel, you agree this was one of the most high-profile cases in the world, if not the most?
Do you really think Mr Grime or anyone else is going to go into detail in writing?
not sure I denied it..try not to do denial...I said I couldn't see it...I wanted someone to point out where it was and you did...the statement means nothing....Im going to look at the Portuguese tomorrow to see what it says
It means he was being very careful with his words, like everyone else involved in this case. For obvious reasons.the only expert re eddie and keela is grime.. the evrd alerts were not corroborated and have no evidential value...according to grime
That's all we can say.
Because none of us are experts.
the only expert re eddie and keela is grime.. the evrd alerts were not corroborated and have no evidential value...according to grime
Clearly that's the case in Portugal at the moment yes.If they are so important, why dont you get them Lyall?
But you also know he since gave evidence in a courtroom in Detroit.
Did you guys try to get the transcripts from that trial yet? I keep saying you ought to.
If they are so important, why dont you get them Lyall?
Can you say with absolute certainty ferryman that what the dogs indicated was wrong ?
If so, provide proof.
The dogs indications were not necessarily wrong. It is the interpretation of those indications by some people which is wrong and which ignores everything Martin Grime tells us about his dogs.
According to Martin Grime - a dog alerting to a cadaverscent is not proof that a body was ever in that spot.
As someone who demands 'absolute certainty' I'm surprised that you should decide to ignore the man who knew most about the abilities of his dogs.
Because it's not me trying to destroy the man's reputation.
Not saying you are or have, but some people here have repeatedly.
How can quoting what Grime himself tells us about the abilities of his own dogs be construed as 'destroying the man's reputation?'
How can quoting what Grime himself tells us about the abilities of his own dogs be construed as 'destroying the man's reputation?'
AS far as I know - Grime has never once used the word 'cadaver' i.e. dead body - only the word 'cadaverscent' - i.e. residual odour from decaying cellular material. And that is because he is fully aware that in the absence of corroborating evidence - any such material alerted to could have originated from a dead body OR a live one. The dog cannot indicate which - and neither can Grime.
IMO Anyone who claims that because of alerts - 'Madeleine died in 5A' can only do so by dismissing/ignoring the facts given to us by Grime himself and substituting them with their own opinions - which clearly contradict his. How can that enhance his reputation?
Help me here:
Cadaver Dogs are trained to locate and follow the scent of decomposing human flesh, that much I know. Having alerted in 5A, are you actually saying that the scent the dog alerted to was from an alive/dead person? Sort of like someone suffering from gangrene?
I thought Eddie was trained by Grime. Who trained him first in another role?No idea but it is my understanding that he was a search dog originally. Searching for living humans in catastrophy areas, like earthquakes, I suppose.
No idea but it is known that he was a search dog originally. Searching for living humans in catastrophy areas, like earthquakes, I suppose.
Do you have a cite?No I dont do cites any more cos my eyes will not allow the in depth reading needed.
No I dont do cites any more cos my eyes will not allow the in depth reading needed.
But there have been mentions of it on here. I fancy that Martin Grime stated that eddie was a search dog before.
Perhaps some one can remember?
I know about bad eyesight Awaiting an optician visit. I hope he is a magician.Thank you Anna; dont know how you find things so quickly. Hope your eyesight gets back to normal soon.
Victim recovery dog.
Any good?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/47march11/SKY_24_03_2011.htm
Thank you Anna; dont know how you find things so quickly. Hope your eyesight gets back to normal soon.
Although it doesn't absolutely cover what I said it does cast a worrying account of Eddies capabilities. I though that they were better, within the limitations I outlined above.
I think this report will do very well.
With thanks to Gerry Mccanns blogs at Pamalam
Sniffer Dogs 'Can Hinder Police Work'
HOMEPAGE NEWS REPORTS INDEX NEWS MARCH 2011
Original Source: SKY: 24 MARCH 2011
8:57am UK, Thursday March 24, 2011
Gerard Tubb, Sky News correspondent
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/47march11/sky-25-3-11-eddie.jpg)
Sniffer dog Eddie was relieved of his police duties
The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.
"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/47march11/sky-25-3-11-sm.jpg)
Sniffer dogs hindered the police probe into Shannon Matthew's disappearance
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
Sorry about that, Sadie.
He was a victim recovery dog who search for victims alive or dead, but he was Enhanced which was the “E” in EVRD, I believe that was because he had trained to detect cadavers and cadaver scent as well as blood.
Hope that is understandable. If anyone knows this to be wrong please correct it.
Here he is described as a blood dog
………………………………...........
BLOOD DOG EDDIE DIED PEACEFULLY APPROX APRIL 2012 FROM THROAT CANCER
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/DEATHS.htm
I know about bad eyesight Awaiting an optician visit. I hope he is a magician.
Victim recovery dog.
Any good?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/47march11/SKY_24_03_2011.htm
Thanks Anna. Sorry, I tend to forget about sticky threads. That "article" detailing how a cadaver dog correctly alerted to cadaver odour but which confused police as it had nothng to do with the missing child doesnt really help vis a vis some stating that Eddie was a live person recovery dog or "wasnt a real cadaver dog". I would need something a little more specific to him than generic talk about sniffer dogs.
How was it ascertained that it was actually a piece of coconut shell which prompted the alert or is this just implied and trotted out by those motivated to discredit the dog/handler ?
I mean.......he couldn`t see it!
Did the dog confirm the alert to it in isolation after it was unearthed?
Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz3hqO80eyw
That "article" doesn't help either
As for the "coconut story", it certainly is not as simple as that! Have you not watched the video of Eddie at Jersey? And all the surrounding interviews?
This thread might help, Carew.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3504.msg135034#msg135034
I have watched the video of Eddie in Jersey.
I have also read the following ...
Operation HAVEN
An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER
of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008
http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf
I recommend it to you.
The thread doesn`t answer the question. The quote I responded to seemed to link the coconut with the alert when there is no proof that it was so.
Well, just how useful are dogs ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3189903/Dogs-sniff-prostate-cancer-detect-tumours-93-accuracy.html
Used correctly and in the right environment search dogs of every variety are priceless.
and there is no professional evidence Grime used his dogs incorrectly
.... but he misconstrued certain of the alerts.
No he didn't.Oh yes he darned well did ... and you know it.
Oh yes he darned well did ... and you know it.
He misconstrued Eddies alert to cuddlecat in the cupboard. This was in the apartment that the Mccanns moved into a good deal later.
Having played with Ccat, and not alerted ...... Eddie then alerted to Ccat , or so said Martin, in a cupboard.
Trouble was that Eddie had already passed Ccat three times close to and NOT alerterd.
He actually alerted to something on top of the cupboard, which looked like a pile of folders with a sheet of paper on top
Martin completely misconstrued that .... and you must know that.
Why do you keep putting out misinformation , Gunit?
The last time you accused me of that it was you who was wrong. In future please check your facts before accusing others. In this instance I prefer to listen to an experienced dog handler rather than an amateur sleuth with a biased agenda;
'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Gunit, I am sorry if I was sharp, but four times now you have demanded from me to prove the same thing .... and each time I have. for you.
The last time you accused me of that it was you who was wrong. In future please check your facts before accusing others. In this instance I prefer to listen to an experienced dog handler rather than an amateur sleuth with a biased agenda;
'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Gunit, I am sorry if I was sharp, but four times now you have demanded from me to prove the same thing .... and each time I have. for you.
That involved a lot of my time ... and you obviously did not even bother to read it, or you dismissed it without reading the previously posted webpage which proved what I said.
To have someone repeatedly demand proof of the same thing is VERY annoying. That sort of treatment is not on, now is it?
I have trawled your posts and found this;
http://csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
The descriptions of the different dogs don't seem to compare with anyone else's descriptions, that's the problem here. Using their criteria and Grime's description of his training Eddie was not one of these;
Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a tracking or air-scent dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies
He was one of these;
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Hopefully I have found the document you have been referring to, and have explained why I dismissed their description of a 'cavader dog' as not referring to Eddie.
I have trawled your posts and found this;Thank you Gunit
http://csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
The descriptions of the different dogs don't seem to compare with anyone else's descriptions, that's the problem here. Using their criteria and Grime's description of his training Eddie was not one of these;
Cadaver Dog
A narrow term, used in a search-and-rescue context, to indicate a canine primarily trained as a tracking or air-scent dog that has also received cross training in the location of dead human bodies
He was one of these;
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Hopefully I have found the document you have been referring to, and have explained why I dismissed their description of a 'cavader dog' as not referring to Eddie.
Thank you Gunit
Eddie was basically a Forensic search Dog .... BUT !!
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; [color = maroon]and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.[/color]
The first sentence in black is what Eddie was intended to be
... BUT, looking at the part in blue
Eddie had already been trained to alert on residual scent from a live human, which includes the scent of human urine, feces, and semen Once trained, the training cannot be detrained. So he is always likely to alert to the scents of a living human human
So seems that makes him ineffective, because when he alerts there is no way of knowing whether it is to odour from Madeleines dead body OR residual odour from her living body ... or even blood from a living persion .... or the scent from a dead pig / pork [He was trained using dead pig rather than dead human parts]
The final part in red:
States that he MUST NEVER have been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue. .... but he has !
Therefore poor Eddie whilst having a brilliant nose was unable to "definitely say" whether he was alerting to the scents from a dead body, a living Madeleine, dried blood, or pork.
Forensic Evidence was necessary .... and there was none
The long and short of it is that we just dont know what he alerted to.
You cant hang, draw and quarter the Mccanns on such unsubstantiated alerts, can you?
And there is nothing else of any substance at all against them
Gunit, I am not very good at explaining things. Hope you understand
And a big thank you to Anna for her input.
So, is there a reference which tells me this? If so, I'll go and look for it;
Eddie had already been trained to alert on residual scent from a live human,
This is the part of the article I posted a link to that tells it all as far as I am concerned -
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction. It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs. Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
Eddie was trained as a rescue dog first of all, in which case he would have been trained to detect live human bodies.
When Eddie alerted in the living room behind the sofa, he alerted exactly where Keela had, the exact spot, so was obviously in my opinion alerting to may be blood.
If Madeleine had lain behind that sofa long enough for the scent of a cadaver to be apparent, then Eddie would have been alerting to whole of the area behind the sofa.
Eddie was panting so he was obviously tired and hot, Keela wasn't panting.
When did Grime retire Eddie?
It seems counterintuitive to say that a dog cannot be retrained. If it can be trained in the first place then I see no reason that it's alert parameters can't be changed given similar training methods. Just another myth stated as a fact.It is made plain that once a dog is taught a skill and learns it, it cannot be detrained despite any retraining..
It is made plain that once a dog is taught a skill and learns it, it cannot be detrained despite any retraining..
Something once learned stays with the dog.
Also:
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
So altho it appears that Eddie has a brilliant nose, unfortunately he was a flawed for the sort of work needed in this case .
With Forensic Evidence then he might have been OK ,
BUT as you know there was no Forensic Evidence against The Mccanns ... therefore he found nothing of significance.
Now will you please excuse me.
It originally came from a document that Lace posted a link to, which appears to have been deleted
BUT this post by Lace has a portion of that document in it
When Lace comes in again, perhaps you would like to ask her the origin of the document that she was referring to?
To repeat:
Eddie was trained as a rescue dog first of all, in which case he would have been trained to detect live human bodies.
And once a dog has been trained to respond to certain stimulii he cannot be detrained.
So, as well as odours from dead bodies
Eddie will always be likely to alert to living odours
It has been gone thru five times now Gunit.
I do hope that you can understand it this time and are prepared to take the facts on board
Thank you for trying to find it Sadie. You didn't, though, did you? We have a quote from Lace saying that Eddie was retrained, but with no cite to support the assertion. That's what I'm looking for. I do hope you can understand that a poster asserting something doesn't make the assertion a fact.As Lace says, she was quoting a snip out of a document that she had already posted.
After a lot of asking it seems that Lace made an assertion unsupported by evidence that Eddie was trained as a rescue dog. Sadie then repeated this assertion as a fact. I await Lace's evidence with interest, as I can find nothing saying Eddie was ever retrained.Before you start getting haughty, may I remind you that I said let's ask Lace when she comes in. Have you conveniently forgotten that?
Eddie also alerted to semen, blood, milk teeth and coconut in Haute de la Garenne.
In fact, in the video I watched there were few places Eddie didn't alert.
Before you start getting haughty, may I remind you that I said let's ask Lace when she comes in. Have you conveniently forgotten that?
Unfortunately she came in today whilst I was away, but despite that, I do have evidence for you that Eddie was trained as a search dog and alerts to parts of living humans.
Lace may well be able to add to these.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
-snip -
The dogs have been used by police forces across the world and were called in to help with the Madeleine McCann investigation.
Both are springer spaniels, but the breed is no better suited to the job than any other. A dog just needs to show a keen sense of smell and it's the training that makes them good enhanced victim recovery dogs, says Mr Grime.
Eddie was bred by a specialist search-dog breeder and Keela came from the West Midlands Police breeding programme.
Both live with Mr Grime and have a normal life outside of work. He is currently training two new dogs, Morse and Lewis.
In the Jersey case, parts of a child's body were found on Saturday. The remains are thought to date from the early 1980s. Police have yet to say whether they are male or female.
[Thanks to Ferryman and Carana]
[And also today: thanks to Brietta]
I am not about to trawl thru all the Haute de Garenne videos, but Briettas word is good enough for me .... As Laces word was too
Satisfied now, Gunit, that Eddie is also a search and rescue dog as well as a Forensic Search Dog ?
To remind you
Forensic Search Dog (The primary focus of this paper)
A canine that has been specifically trained to indicate a scent source as being from decomposed human tissue. Such animals are also trained to exclude (deconditioned to) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen and will not alert on residual scent from a live human; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.
Eddie was double trained. Brilliant nose tho he has, unhappily he is a flawed dog, because of this double training, for a Forensic Search Dog
It clearly states that as a Forensic Search Dog, he MUST NEVER have been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue. .... but he has !
Eddie was trained as a victim recovery dog then he had 'enhanced' training using dead human bodies, so he was cross trained.
Enhanced training is intended to improve upon initial training, it's all training in the same area - recovery of dead human bodies. Enhanced doesn't mean different.
enhance;
ntensify, increase, or further improve the quality, value, or extent of.
Problem is that Forensic search dogs are ONLY trained on dead bodies.
[/quote
There is no opportunity to do that in the UK, only in the US. In the UK piglets are used. Later Eddie had some training using the actual scent of dead humans. This helped him to be absolutely sure what he was looking for, it wasn't training in a different area. These dogs are called different things by different people, but they are clearly trained to find, and used to find, dead bodies.
Very remarkable and very informative, thanks for posting that
I find it interesting as well.
This is one of the reasons why I find it misleading when some people keep referring to "cadaver" odour instead of "human decomposition" odour. Unless that person was congratulating family members on a still-born baby or deceased new mother, the scent is simply decomposing human material that doesn't necessarily mean that someone has died.
But the most common training aid is placenta, donated by new moms.
"I'm in the habit of congratulating family members and in the second sentence saying, 'So, what are you doing with your placenta?" said Cooper, who has a few placentas in her freezer at home.
And handler bias, intentional or unintentional, is an issue in crime scene investigations, particularly high-profile ones. Whether or not that potential bias is exacerbated in independent (as opposed to salaried police) handlers might make for an interesting study.
In 2011, Lisa Lit, a researcher at the University of California, Davis, found that what a handler already knows can affect the outcome of their dog's search.
The study was done using dogs trained to find drugs and explosives, but Cablk says the findings divided the cadaver dog community.
If handlers weren't using blind testing (where the handler doesn't know the location of the target scent) or double blind testing (where both the handler and test adjudicator don't know the target) then the dogs could simply be picking up on unconscious cues from the handler, not the scent itself.
"It's one of those things that, to a scientist, it makes perfect sense," Cablk said. "But dog handlers are not scientists."
How true. IMO no dog handler and his/her dog can be automatically regarded as ' exempt' from this possibility unless they have been previously tested.
IMO it has never been clearly established whether MG was a salaried employee of SYP during his time at PdL - or whether he was being employed as an 'independent' sub-contractor.
The fact that unlike the other UK police dog handlers he never wore a police uniform and as far as I know was never referred to in any statements as DC Grime - and his dogs were never referred to as 'police' dogs (in the present tense) at the time - leads me to believe he was working independently - and that this was his very first case -which happened to seamlessly follow on from his departure from SYP.
(From memory so - if I've got an of that wrong - I'm sure someone will point it out)
There's an unresolved argument as to whether he was still technically on the police payroll or not at the time. Whether he was or he wasn't in that particular search, the fact still remains that his role in Jersey (not long afterwards) was NOT as a police handler, but as someone launching an independent career.
My comment isn't about him in particular, but about anyone embarking on a new career path and who needs positive PR to launch it.
There is no argument, the Chief Constable of SYP sent Grime to Portugal, he was not retired at that time. As for cadaver dogs, it is very true, train a dog using decomposing pigs and he will alert to decomposing pigs.
There is no argument, the Chief Constable of SYP sent Grime to Portugal, he was not retired at that time. As for cadaver dogs, it is very true, train a dog using decomposing pigs and he will alert to decomposing pigs.
There is no argument, the Chief Constable of SYP sent Grime to Portugal, he was not retired at that time. As for cadaver dogs, it is very true, train a dog using decomposing pigs and he will alert to decomposing pigs.
I haven't found anything that would confirm that the chief constable of SYP sent him to Portugal. Where did you read that?
ASAIK, it was Mark Harrison (of NPIA at the time) who proposed Grime's services to the PJ.
hardly relevant, if anythng MHs recommendation would have carried more weight
Not relevant to what?
Nikki Burgess murder caseAnd what sort of machine was that? I want one.
Later, cadaver dogs alerted detectives to that bathroom and the master bedroom. What the dogs alerted to was the presence of human decomposition.
“The first area they alerted to was in the master bedroom where the bundle of blankets was,” said Atkin. “The second area they alerted to was in the bathroom, specifically the bathtub.”
Blood-stained bedding, brass knuckles and empty bottles of cleaner were among the items recovered during a search the Hermitage home.
Cannon is charged with first-degree murder in the case. Burgess’ body has yet to be found.
http://wkrn.com/2015/11/24/man-charged-in-nikki-burgess-case-due-in-court/
He said Cannon told him he killed Burgess in her bedroom.
“He followed her to the bedroom, took out a pair of brass knuckles. The brass knuckles he said were wrapped in a piece of cloth or towel of some sort and he struck her in the back of the head the brass knuckle repeatedly until she fell on the ground in the bedroom,” Breuington testified.
He continued, “He took a cord that he had ripped off an appliance of some sort at the house – he didn’t say what appliance – he put it around her neck and strangled her to death.”
When asked if Cannon ever told him what happened to Burgess’ body, he said, “Took it to a farm, put it in a machine that ground up her body.”
http://wkrn.com/2017/05/17/ex-girlfriend-former-cellmate-reveal-new-details-in-nikki-burgess-murder/
Cadaver Dog Buster and the Black Dahlia Murder: The Scent of DeathThe difference between the cadavar dogs, which you mention Pathfinder, and Eddie is that they only alert to Cadavar odour. Whilst Eddie alerts to Cadavar odour and dessicated blood left by a living person.
The difference between the cadavar dogs, which you mention Pathfinder, and Eddie is that they only alert to Cadavar odour. Whilst Eddie alerts to Cadavar odour and dessicated blood left by a living person.
He was double trained to alert to both the scent of death and the sent of dessicated blood from a living person .. and will alert to both. Most cadavar dogs will only alert to cadavar odour.
So if Eddie alerts, which is more likely?
That he is alerting to
1) The dried blood from a living person?
or,
2) the scent of a dead body?
As dessicated blood (from a living person) can come from such minor accidents as a cut finger.a picked spot, a grazed knee, menstrual blood, a nose bleed, then it would be surprising if Eddie had not alerted in 5A. Madeleine arrived with a grazed knee
The incidence of the odour of a cadavar would be massively lower than the incidence of dried living blood. Almost certainly Eddie alerted to dried living blood only.
Pathfinder, you cannot compare the alerts that Eddie made to those of a dog trained only on cadavar odour, unless you mention that Eddie also alerts to dried living blood. It is not honest to do so, because of this. IMO
Which is why, as we all know, Keela was used to eliminate potential blood odour.Supposedly but we have no evidence that she did check several of the spots, most especially in the hire car and the whole of the clothing set out in the gym. In 5A she affirmed that the spots on the wall were the dessicated blood of a living person and not cadavar odour.
Which is why, as we all know, Keela was used to eliminate potential blood odour.
The difference between the cadavar dogs, which you mention Pathfinder, and Eddie is that they only alert to Cadavar odour. Whilst Eddie alerts to Cadavar odour and dessicated blood left by a living person.
He was double trained to alert to both the scent of death and the sent of dessicated blood from a living person .. and will alert to both. Most cadavar dogs will only alert to cadavar odour.
So if Eddie alerts, which is more likely?
That he is alerting to
1) The dried blood from a living person?
or,
2) the scent of a dead body?
As dessicated blood (from a living person) can come from such minor accidents as a cut finger.a picked spot, a grazed knee, menstrual blood, a nose bleed, then it would be surprising if Eddie had not alerted in 5A. Madeleine arrived with a grazed knee
The incidence of the odour of a cadavar would be massively lower than the incidence of dried living blood. Almost certainly Eddie alerted to dried living blood only.
Pathfinder, you cannot compare the alerts that Eddie made to those of a dog trained only on cadavar odour, unless you mention that Eddie also alerts to dried living blood. It is not honest to do so, because of this. IMO
All cadaver dogs alert to blood including Buster. Don't be ignorant Sadie.
“Buster” World Famous Police Cadaver Dog Dies from Sudden Heart Attack
Buster, who was 12-years old (85 in human years) was a court-certified HRDC expert witness. His official title, being a Human Remains Detection Canine, more commonly known in police jargon as, a “Cadaver Dog.” Buster, known as, “The Wonder Dog” did not have just your average nose for his work, but was truly one of the Top Dog’s in his field.
A world traveler Buster’s search assignments included detecting human remains and locating lost gravesites of WWII MIA’s in Europe (Normandy, France,) as well as Belgium (Battle of the Bulge 1944). Buster has made numerous trips to the Pacific to the small atoll of Tarawa, in the Gilbert Islands, where he has been credited with finding dozens of MIA remains.
Buster also conducted follow-up investigative searches in the Charles Manson Case at Barker Ranch and in my own Black Dahlia investigation in 2012 and 2013. His most recent work involved locating and “alerting” to human remains in a Northern California unsolved murder investigation.
(http://stevehodel.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/buster-w-blue-bone-225x300.jpg)
Buster at Sowden/Hodel House 2012 with favorite blue bone toy
http://stevehodel.com/2016/02/buster-world-famous-police-cadaver-dog-dies-from-sudden-heart-attack-praised-for-locating-wwii-mia-gravesites-and-helping-crack-black-dahlia-murder/
"The dog can detect things you can't see, even if it's a crime scene where someone had cleaned up blood. If there's a drop of blood that's been wiped up and you can't see it, the dog will find that. Then you bring in your forensic staff and let them concentrate on that spot so they can quickly determine if there's blood evidence in the house."
Paul Dotsie - Buster's handler
K9 CRIME-FIGHTER: BUSTER THE 3-LEGGED DOG FINDS BURIED BODIES
https://crimewatchdaily.com/videos/0-dmok8ljg/
Cadaver dogs alert to human blood scent. Eddie, Buster.....End of.
When would I use a Human Remains Detection Dog?
Human Remains Detections dogs are best used for cases like buried bodies, aged disarticulations, old homicide or suicide cases, bone searches, blood evidence, residual scent, crime scenes, building searches, and vehicle searches.
http://www.csst.org/faq.html.
This is simple Ferryman. Cadaver dogs search for human remains including blood evidence.
What are the qualities and skills of a Human Remains Detection Dog?
The Human Remains Detection Dog is trained to alert on residual scent along with other faint scent sources like dried blood.
It is, indeed, simple pathfinder.
Why do you suppose Grime was asked, in his rogatory interview whether Eddie would react to blood?
The ones asking the questions are not dog experts.Cite, please for Morse, Buster and all cadavar dogs are trained for dried blood from a live human being
"The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Same for Morse, Buster, all cadaver dogs. Eddie is no different.
Cite, please for Morse, Buster and all cadavar dogs are trained for dried blood from a live human being
TY
You are aware that dead human beings don't bleed?
You are aware that dead human beings don't bleed?That is disinformation Slarti.
They certainly do immediately after death.And if the lower part of the cadavar where the blood has settled, has been damaged as it is moved etc., it will bleed Cadavar blood according to one article I read.
And if the lower part of the cadavar where the blood has settled, has been damaged as it is moved etc., it will bleed Cadavar blood according to one article I read.That sounds spot on the mark Sadie.
So Cadavars do sometimes lose blood. A cadavar dog will alert to this, even if the blood has been cleaned up.
Cite, please for Morse, Buster and all cadavar dogs are trained for dried blood from a live human being
TY
No cadaver dogs alert to fresh blood scent. They all alert to dried blood.
To get any dog to alert to anything, you have to introduce the dog to the scent you want the dog to alert to and reward the dog for alerting.
If you don't want a dog to alert to that scent, you simply skip the step of introducing the dog to the scent and rewarding the dog for alerting to it.
Then the dog won't.
Having two dogs that both alert to the same scent is, well, plain barking.
Always the weak link in the Eddie-and-Keela combination.
Cadaver (Human Remains) Detection Dogs will be fully accredited on the following odours:
human tissue (in varying states of decomposition)
blood
bone
Email that to an expert and post their response. "A cadaver dog won't alert to blood on its own?" Let's see their reply. I can't wait.
Dogs trained to react to blood will do so.But there is no reason you can't have a dog trained in detecting two groups of items, eg drugs and explosives at border controls. (Think of the range of drugs there are and I not sure but I'd imagine explosives will have various odours as well.)
But not otherwise.
Ditto dogs trained to react to drugs.
Or trained to react to explosives.
Or trained to react to cancer cells in humans.
But in each of the above-listed cases, not otherwise.
But there is no reason you can't have a dog trained in detecting two groups of items, eg drugs and explosives at border controls. (Think of the range of drugs there are and I not sure but I'd imagine explosives will have various odours as well.)
Dogs trained to react to blood will do so.
But not otherwise.
Ditto dogs trained to react to drugs.
Or trained to react to explosives.
Or trained to react to cancer cells in humans.
But in each of the above-listed cases, not otherwise.
Eddie was dual-trained to react to blood and (other) scents of dead humans.Eddie just barked in the general region of the odour e.g. was it the wardrobe or just the corner of the room?
Of course, blood can be shed by living people.
The key point, though.
If you have one dog trained to react to blood and ....
Why Keela (trained to react to nothing else)?
Cadaver dogs will alert to human blood on its own. Go ask an expert if you don't believe it's true?
"Training a cadaver dog requires regular contact with human blood, decaying flesh and bones. In the United States, dog handlers can legally obtain bodily components like human placenta and blood, but not always easily, and trainers like Cablk often resort to using their own blood."
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/magazine/how-to-train-a-cadaver-dog.html
In the United States, dog handlers can legally obtain bodily components like human placenta and blood, but not always easily, and trainers like Cablk often resort to using their own blood.
Eddie was dual-trained to react to blood and (other) scents of dead humans.
Of course, blood can be shed by living people.
The key point, though.
If you have one dog trained to react to blood and ....
Why Keela (trained to react to nothing else)?
It's called logic.
Not to train your cadaver dog to react to blood if you have another dog trained to react to nothing but.
Yes.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40740503
A missing woman in Florida, who suffers from dementia, was found rapidly by a sniffer dog after the animal was provided with an armpit scent pad sample taken and bottled two and a half years ago.
The dog got an ice-cream as its reward. 8((()*/
Whilst searching for some answers to a particular live-scent dog related issue, I came across an interesting case in the USA which has historical parallels to the McCann case (dog alerts, eye-witness testimony & partial tangible evidence match) - State of Florida v Wilton Dedge.Grime has coveted himself by never claiming the dogs alerted to cadaver scent...
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=jlasc
It's a long read but well worth the time spent when considering scent dog evidence, handler claims & also eye witness testimony.
Wilton Dedge was the accused, Ms. Smith the rape victim.
*snipped*
The only other “evidence” that the police were able to develop before trial involved the
use of a scent dog months after the crime. In March 1982, Dedge wet his hands in the Brevard
County Courthouse bathroom, dried them on paper towels from a bathroom dispenser, and handed
the paper towels to an investigator. The investigator grasped the paper towels by the edges, hung
them to dry, and then placed them in a paper bag from a coffee shop in the building.34 Eight days
later, police dog handler John Preston and his German shepherd, Harrass II, conducted a “scent
lineup” using the sheets from Ms. Smith’s bedroom and four dirty sheets from the local jail that
Dedge had never touched. Harrass II sniffed the dried, eight-day-old paper towels in the bag and
Preston walked the canine up and down the lineup of sheets, commanding him to “search.” On the
second pass, Harrass II stopped at the (bloody) sheet from Ms. Smith’s bed, allegedly detecting
Mr. Dedge’s scent on the sheet—more than three months after the crime. Harrass II was later brought to Ms. Smith’s home, where he supposedly indicated Dedge’s presence more than three
months earlier by touching his nose to various areas in the house.
The trial began in September 1982 and lasted eight days. The State relied upon three
things to prove Dedge’s guilt 1) the eyewitness testimony of Ms. Smith; 2) the hair analysis; and
3) the dog scent lineup.
Dedge was found guilty & had his sentence increased to life after a prison inmate falsely snitched to obtain a reduced sentence for himself.
To cut a long story short, Dedge was eventually cleared years & multiple appeals later, after 2 sets of DNA tests were carried out on semen traces collected from the victim at the time.
The dog handler in question, John Preston, was later discredited but reportedly helped secure convictions in around 100 cases across the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Preston_(dog_handler)
It poses the question to the Dogs Don't Lie Brigade - was the handler to blame, or the dog, for all the false alerts?
Grime has coveted himself by never claiming the dogs alerted to cadaver scent...
The rule was simple: the dog is always right.
Hound of the Brigade: Sherlock the forensic fire dog can sniff out evidence of an arson a year after it happened and wears bespoke bootees so he doesn’t hurt his paws
Cocker Spaniel Sherlock has a 100% success rate in helping investigate fires
His nose can detect the presence of lighter fuel or other inflammatory liquids
The dog has special boots to help him go into areas where their had been fires
This particular handler never questions his dog it seems.I like this a lot, barrier. Our Cocker Spaniel is golden red. Everyone tells us we have got a fruit loop, but if the London fire service can train up a golden red cocker to sniff for accelerents, there is still hope for Gonçalo.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5711397/Sherlock-forensic-fire-dog-sniff-evidence-arson-year-happened.html
I like this a lot, barrier. Our Cocker Spaniel is golden red. Everyone tells us we have got a fruit loop, but if the London fire service can train up a golden red cocker to sniff for accelerents, there is still hope for Gonçalo.
e have been referred to two experts in dog behavioural therapy. One is a vet in Tavira, right down the other side of the Algarve. The other, by strange coincidence, is a Professor Gonçalo, in Lisbon.
I like this a lot, barrier. Our Cocker Spaniel is golden red. Everyone tells us we have got a fruit loop, but if the London fire service can train up a golden red cocker to sniff for accelerents, there is still hope for Gonçalo.
We have been referred to two experts in dog behavioural therapy. One is a vet in Tavira, right down the other side of the Algarve. The other, by strange coincidence, is a Professor Gonçalo, in Lisbon.
You never called your fruit loop dog Goncalo, did you?We live in Lagos district. The patron saint of Lagos, and of Algarve fishermen, is St Gonçalo. The hospital in Lagos is named after St Gonçalo. The school that two of our grandchildren go to in Luz is the College of St Gonçalo.
We live in Lagos district. The patron saint of Lagos, and of Algarve fishermen, is St Gonçalo. The hospital in Lagos is named after St Gonçalo. The school that two of our grandchildren go to in Luz is the College of St Gonçalo.
I wanted a Portuguese name, and one that is not common here. So Gonçalo he is.
Our grandchildren got it straight away. It takes oldies a little bit longer.
I don't have a problem with this, in fact I think it's a really good name for a dog. I might even use it myself next time around, and if it's the year of G in France
Did you know that St Goncalo is also the Saint for haemorrhoid sufferers, but that is by the by. Somebody has to be.
Having done a quick search in a Catholic saints index, there doesn't appear to be a Saint Goncalo.
There is a Blessed Goncalo with a date of his beatification but no mention of a canonisation.
Perhaps someone can find more information.
ETA.
Found him.
He seems to have been born in Portuguese India.
http://www.racjonalista.pl/kk.php/s,2695
I don't have a problem with this, in fact I think it's a really good name for a dog. I might even use it myself next time around, and if it's the year of G in FranceThere are at least 2 St Gonçalos. One appears to be the major one, and is popular in Brazil. The other appears to be the lesser one, and is associated with Lagos. That's 'our' one.
Did you know that St Goncalo is also the Saint for haemorrhoid sufferers, but that is by the by. Somebody has to be.
There are at least 2 St Gonçalos. One appears to be the major one, and is popular in Brazil. The other appears to be the lesser one, and is associated with Lagos. That's 'our' one.
St Gonçalo of Lagos https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:S%C3%A3o_Gon%C3%A7alo_de_Lagos
There are at least 2 St Gonçalos. One appears to be the major one, and is popular in Brazil. The other appears to be the lesser one, and is associated with Lagos. That's 'our' one.
St Gonçalo of Lagos https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:S%C3%A3o_Gon%C3%A7alo_de_Lagos
It's his canonisation date which I cannot find.
He is beatified and listed as Blessed Goncalo in the index of Catholic Saints.
Not canonised though as far as I can find.
All off topic of course.
Apologies.
Thanks for that.
Everyone around here is named after one saint or the other, Marie being the most popular, although Jean Baptiste figures quite a lot.
I personally have named a couple of my dogs after saints, although more by accident than design.
We also have a church dedicated to St Rivalain. But nobody has ever heard of him anywhere else.
My fault for Off Topic. But if you can't have a bit of fun on a dull Saturday morning then you might as well give up.
Tut,tut,still it got me looking back at the Saint of the village I was raised in. 8(0(*
K9 that found missing California man, who was found dead in WNY, was on first career search
The cadaver K9 that found him is a German Shepard, Malinois mix. Her name is Leiche; she's with the Erie County Sheriff's Office. She came to the department with zero cadaver K9 training, less than a year ago.
Seven days a week, she trains with her handler, Erie County Sheriff's Deputy Bradley Girdler.
"Every day I do put out some hides for her to find," he said during an interview with News 4 at Chestnut Ridge Park.
Leiche looks for the smell of decomposition.
"She doesn't actually track anyone... she doesn't get a piece of clothing or anything from a specific individual, she would just go and detect that scent."
If she finds that scent, she sits.
"She doesn't know what she's finding, she just knows the scent she finds is ultimately going to give her a reward, which is hot dogs and a ball."
Back in May, Rudy Ray Rockett had been missing almost three weeks. Search crews scoured areas they thought he could've been, but all of them came back with no leads.
That all changed the night of May 19. This Erie County Sheriff's duo was called in, on their very first 'real' search.
"On the way to the search, I was nervous about how she would do, how she would react under real-world conditions," Girdler said.
They were called to an East Otto address.
"We went down there, it was dark."
They searched an open camping area, but Leiche didn't find anything there, so they expanded their search area.
The two, along with a Cattaragus County Sheriff's deputy, went down a hill, through a pine forest. Her nose led them through a clearing where there was a ravine with a creek running through it. Along that ravine, she sat.
"It's pitch black and my flashlight is on her," Deputy Girdler said. "So I'm walking through and I'm literally just shining my flashlight on her to watch her body language and movement, and then when she sat, I initially didn't realize why. But then as soon as I moved my flashlight across my feet, I realized she had in fact sat right next to Mr. Rockett."
Twenty days after he went missing, Mr. Rockett's family could finally get some closure.
Just seven months after starting on the job, Leiche had her very first find.
"I was absolutely proud of her," Deputy Girdler said. "Obviously it's a difficult situation, but for her, that's her job, so when she did her job correctly, I was obviously delighted with her."
http://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/k9-that-found-missing-california-man-who-was-found-dead-in-wny-was-on-first-career-search/1241859606
K9 that found missing California man, who was found dead in WNY, was on first career searchA very informative read, PathFinder. *&(+(+
The cadaver K9 that found him is a German Shepard, Malinois mix. Her name is Leiche; she's with the Erie County Sheriff's Office. She came to the department with zero cadaver K9 training, less than a year ago.
Seven days a week, she trains with her handler, Erie County Sheriff's Deputy Bradley Girdler.
"Every day I do put out some hides for her to find," he said during an interview with News 4 at Chestnut Ridge Park.
Leiche looks for the smell of decomposition.
"She doesn't actually track anyone... she doesn't get a piece of clothing or anything from a specific individual, she would just go and detect that scent."
If she finds that scent, she sits.
"She doesn't know what she's finding, she just knows the scent she finds is ultimately going to give her a reward, which is hot dogs and a ball."
Back in May, Rudy Ray Rockett had been missing almost three weeks. Search crews scoured areas they thought he could've been, but all of them came back with no leads.
That all changed the night of May 19. This Erie County Sheriff's duo was called in, on their very first 'real' search.
"On the way to the search, I was nervous about how she would do, how she would react under real-world conditions," Girdler said.
They were called to an East Otto address.
"We went down there, it was dark."
They searched an open camping area, but Leiche didn't find anything there, so they expanded their search area.
The two, along with a Cattaragus County Sheriff's deputy, went down a hill, through a pine forest. Her nose led them through a clearing where there was a ravine with a creek running through it. Along that ravine, she sat.
"It's pitch black and my flashlight is on her," Deputy Girdler said. "So I'm walking through and I'm literally just shining my flashlight on her to watch her body language and movement, and then when she sat, I initially didn't realize why. But then as soon as I moved my flashlight across my feet, I realized she had in fact sat right next to Mr. Rockett."
Twenty days after he went missing, Mr. Rockett's family could finally get some closure.
Just seven months after starting on the job, Leiche had her very first find.
"I was absolutely proud of her," Deputy Girdler said. "Obviously it's a difficult situation, but for her, that's her job, so when she did her job correctly, I was obviously delighted with her."
http://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/k9-that-found-missing-california-man-who-was-found-dead-in-wny-was-on-first-career-search/1241859606
Uh Huh ... she performed exactly as she was trained to do and found a body. What is your point?
A very informative read, PathFinder. *&(+(+
If a dog can be trained on hides, I need to stop giving our dog, Gonçalo, hide chews as an alternative to real bones.
And I need to include hot dogs in his reward scheme. 8((()*/
I wonder how far away Leiche was when she first smelled the body.
Don't underestimate a dog's nose and if Eddie had made false alerts he wouldn't have been on the McCann case - The Brits brought their best dogs to this case as SY well know! Now if you can name one case where Eddie has alerted and the missing person has turned up alive then I'm all ears ?
It is simple. Eddie has alerted - If the missing person turns up alive and there's no other explanation he is wrong. Eddie was tested for court in the Parker case to prove his cadaver odour detecting skills - that was in a jail. Next you will be saying there would be no traces of blood in a jail @)(++(* These dogs were exceptional and SY know it. 12 million and counting!
Blind faith in their ability just doesn't cut the mustard.
There are stringent procedures in place in American courts regarding training protocols for these dogs. Rather like calibrating an instrument to ensure it is fit for purpose.
You have not provided a citation outlining Eddie's accredited training schedule and his performance in training.
That’s a new one, Eddie was wrong because he didn’t have a piece of paper...Seems that you are twisting Briettas words.
Seems that you are twisting Briettas words.
Cite please for where Brietta said that Eddie was wrong because he didn't have a piece of paper (certificate)
So you don’t think that that is what she was trying to convey?
Seems that you are twisting Briettas words.
Cite please for where Brietta said that Eddie was wrong because he didn't have a piece of paper (certificate)
That’s a new one, Eddie was wrong because he didn’t have a piece of paper...It seems that with or without a piece of paper the attributes of cadaver dogs are not an exact science. If they are to be taken seriously in a court of law there has to be a more consistent regime of training standards which are accredited independently.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/47march11/sky-25-3-11-eddie_small.jpgI think it is just a bit of editor's hyperbole, Sadie, and I swithered before copying it in. Martin Grime reached retiral and was able to take Eddie with him.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/47march11/sky-25-3-11-eddie_small.jpg)
Sniffer dog Eddie was relieved of his police duties
Is this the truth of the matter? Was Eddie relieved of his police duties ?
This wasn't one alert by Eddie but many alerts. You really think the police who know Eddie believe he false alerted many times to apartment 5A, clothes with no blood, outside of the car etc. It's not hard to work out why so much money is being spent on this case.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf!! OUCH !!
Section 6 makes for interesting reading.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdfOh my...
Section 6 makes for interesting reading.
Goodness me. There's a few turn ups.
Perhaps you can point out what that has to do with scent dog accuracy?Probably the bit where it says Grime’s dogs licenses had expired and could not therefore be considered reliable?
Probably the bit where it says Grime’s dogs licenses had expired and could not therefore be considered reliable?
Not section 6 which was originally highlighted.
Perhaps you can point out what that has to do with scent dog accuracy?
Checks and balances, Slarti.
The first paragraph on page 38 notes that Mr Grime worked alone in Jersey, just as he had in Portugal. Apparently this is not recommended.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
Apologies, title was costs.
Not section 6 which was originally highlighted.From section 6
licence for his human blood detection dog expired in March 2008.The cadaver dog license expired some 7 months prior to Grimes arrival on the island in mid Feb 2008. 7 months back from mid Feb is mid July 2007. When were the searches carried out in PdL?
The McCann case was 2007.
The cadaver dog license expired some 7 months prior to Grimes arrival on the island in mid Feb 2008. 7 months back from mid Feb is mid July 2007. When were the searches carried out in PdL?
Does the dogs nose stop working when it’s license expires?Maybe. Why do they have licenses which expire otherwise?
Maybe. Why do they have licenses which expire otherwise?
Keeps someone in a job.That’s the only reason is it?
That’s the only reason is it?
Frequently, it would be interesting to know how many failed the regular recertification.So somewhere there’s a guy whose only job is to re-certify cadaver dogs? LOL.
Eddie was still finding bodies after Jersey licence or not.
Sniffer dog Eddie and his handler Martin Grime, who were involved in the hunt for Madeleine McCann and in the Soham murders of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells, were called in. And Eddie pinpointed the exact spot where Bob's body lay.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099
Any dog can find a dead body if there is one.
Snip
Bob's loved ones were left in agony for weeks before Crummack, fearing Campbell was about to stitch him up, led police to the sand dune grave.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sanday-murder-trial-the-orkney-island-1052099
Any untrained dog can find a buried body? Cite.
With respect PF ... dog walkers and their dogs find human remains on a regular basis ... there are numerous internet accounts.
I have anecdotal evidence of four such accounts in the relatively small area where I walk my dog.
With respect PF ... dog walkers and their dogs find human remains on a regular basis ... there are numerous internet accounts.
I have anecdotal evidence of four such accounts in the relatively small area where I walk my dog.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
(Report to the Minister and Accounting
Officer, Home Affairs Department,
States of Jersey
Operation Rectangle
Review of the Efficient and Effective
Use of Resources
May 2010)
snipped
The fact is that Mr Grime was not, at the time he was deployed in
Jersey, an ACPO accredited police dog instructor, despite his
claims to be so in statements and other documents submitted
during his involvement in Operation Rectangle. Furthermore, the
licence for his cadaver dog had expired some seven months prior
to his arrival on the Island and the licence for his human blood
detection dog expired in March 2008, whilst he was deployed in
Jersey and using that dog. According to the ACPO Police Dog
Working Group, “Dog and handler teams that, for whatever
reason, fail to remain in-licence [are] deemed “not competent” for
operational duty until such time as they [have] successfully
undergone a re-licensing process”. Mr Grime has advised that his
dogs are licensed by a suitably qualified person, although no
further details have been provided to us.
ƒ We are not qualified to comment with any authority on what effect,
if any, Mr Grime’s lack of ACPO accreditation and the fact that his
dogs’ licences had expired, made on operations at Haut de la
Garenne, and this is outside the scope of this Review in any event.
However, we understand that throughout his deployment he
worked alone and in this respect we refer to Chapter 21 of the
ACPO Police Dog Training and Care Manual. This chapter deals
with searches for human remains and at paragraph 17.5 it states,
inter alia, “…consideration should be given to employing an
experienced dog handler to act as observer to advise the handler
on any such indications being given”. We are not aware of any
evidence indicating that Mr Grime benefited from the assistance of
another experienced dog handler during his deployment at Haut de
la Garenne, as recommended by the manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Were these buried? Cite.
I have reset the poll so please do take the opportunity to record your opinion.
April 2012
The Nose Knows
Can cadaver dogs really sniff out 30-year-old remains?
By Katy Waldman
Police on Thursday revived their search for Etan Patz, a 6-year-old who disappeared in 1979 en route to a New York City bus stop, after a cadaver-sniffing dog recently detected the odor of human remains in a basement near Patz’s SoHo home. Can dogs really smell 33-year-old remains?
Yes, if you have the right dog.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/04/etan_patz_search_renewed_can_cadaver_dogs_smell_30_year_old_corpses_.html?via=gdpr-consent
Feb. 14, 2017
Pedro Hernandez, a former bodega stock clerk who confessed to luring 6-year-old Etan Patz into a basement and attacking him, was found guilty on Tuesday of murder and kidnapping, a long-awaited step toward closure in a case that bedeviled investigators for decades and changed forever the way parents watched over their children.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/nyregion/etan-patz-pedro-hernandez-guilty.html
The cadaver dog's alerts were not consistent with the confession & despite pulling the basement apart, no body was found there.This article also has some interesting things to say about the type of people who give false confessions and the circumstances in which they can be elicited #cipriano
https://www.propublica.org/article/missing-a-boy-and-the-evidence-against-his-accused-killer
This article also has some interesting things to say about the type of people who give false confessions and the circumstances in which they can be elicited #cipriano
The cadaver dog's alerts were not consistent with the confession & despite pulling the basement apart, no body was found there.
https://www.propublica.org/article/missing-a-boy-and-the-evidence-against-his-accused-killer
Why do you think a body would still be there? Only a complete idiot perp would leave a body in a basement to be found.
"Hernandez, a 51-year-old man with no formal criminal history, said he had lured Etan to the bodega’s basement with the promise of a soda, instantly choked him, placed him, still alive, in a plastic bag, and then inside a cardboard box, threw the boy’s book bag behind a freezer and carried the box in broad daylight several blocks before placing it on the sidewalk. He said he had not known the boy, and he offered no motive."
Do we actually have a Body?
So why did the cadaver dog alert if Etan was still alive when placed in plastic then inside a box?
Could therer be a delay between the killing and the carrying the box away? [days later] inserted.
"Hernandez, a 51-year-old man with no formal criminal history, said he had lured Etan to the bodega’s basement with the promise of a soda, instantly choked him, placed him, still alive, in a plastic bag, and then inside a cardboard box, threw the boy’s book bag behind a freezer and [days later] carried the box in broad daylight several blocks before placing it on the sidewalk. He said he had not known the boy, and he offered no motive."
Pedro Hernandez Gets 25 Years to Life in Murder of Etan Patz
Mr. Patz turned toward Mr. Hernandez and said: “Pedro Hernandez, after all these years, we finally know what dark secret you had locked in your heart. You took our precious child and threw him in the garbage. I will never forgive you. The God you pray to will never forgive you.”
After a long day of interrogation in May 2012, he told detectives in a videotaped interview that he had met Etan outside the bodega and lured him into the basement with the promise of soda. There, he said, he choked the boy. He later repeated the story to a prosecutor during a longer interview, which was also recorded.
“I just couldn’t let go,” Mr. Hernandez said in one interview. “I felt like something just took over me.”
Mr. Hernandez said he put Etan inside a plastic bag and then inside a box and left him a block away in an alleyway with some trash. He said the child was still alive when he abandoned him. He also denied that he had sexually abused Etan.
Mr. Hernandez’s lawyers presented evidence that he had a low IQ as well as schizotypal personality disorder, which caused him to mingle fact and fiction. His daughter testified that he sometimes hallucinated about demons and an angelic woman dressed in white.
The prosecution team — Joan Illuzzi, Joel J. Seidemann and James Vinocur — introduced witnesses who said that Mr. Hernandez had made a similar confession to people at a prayer retreat shortly after Etan disappeared. In addition, his former wife and a childhood friend testified that Mr. Hernandez had told them in the early 1980s that he had killed a boy in New York City, although he gave different details.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/nyregion/pedro-hernandez-etan-patz-sentencing.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2Fhernandez%2C%20pedro%20&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection
The confession is just not consistent with cadaver alerts to remnant scent some 30 years later. Didn't Hernandez originally say the boy he killed was black?That bold sentence would be an opinion wouldn't it, or can you show it is a fact?
That bold sentence would be an opinion wouldn't it, or can you show it is a fact?
Based on the prosecution case & what we know about cadaver dogs, which part of the sentence do you feel is not factual?
Unless,you actually say why it is an opinion.
Based on the prosecution case & what we know about cadaver dogs, which part of the sentence do you feel is not factual?Anything I feel about the facts of the matter would also be opinion.
It is a fact that Hernandez provided a testimony which was used in court against him, saying that Etan was still alive when he abandoned him on the sidewalk in a box.You can put a living person into a box "alive" but unless there is sufficient oxygen that person is not going to stay alive for long. Once that formerly living person dies then cadaver odours would develop. Thinking about it by dying in such a fashion, the body temperature would be up and the insulation provided by the box would cause rapid decomposition of the body (i.e. comparatively rapid cadaver odour development would be the outcome) IMO.
It is a fact that cadaver dogs should not alert to remnant scent of a living human.
How is that opinion?
You can put a living person into a box "alive" but unless there is sufficient oxygen that person is not going to stay alive for long. Once that formerly living person dies then cadaver odours would develop. Thinking about it by dying in such a fashion, the body temperature would be up and the insulation provided by the box would cause rapid decomposition of the body (i.e. comparatively rapid cadaver odour development would be the outcome) IMO.
That opinion is not consistent with the confession used against Hernandez in court. Was the confession unreliable or did the cadaver dog alert to the remnant scent of someone/something other than Etan?What part was inconsistent with the confession?
What part was inconsistent with the confession?
The police believe he was strangled to death in the basement then wrapped and put inside a box there re cadaver dog alert.
The cadaver dog alert in the basement.In the confession it said "Pedro Hernandez, a former bodega stock clerk who confessed to luring 6-year-old Etan Patz into a basement and attacking him, ..." So if in that attack EP bled onto the floor of the basement and that blood decomposed after it soaked into the woodwork (say) that could be the source of the cadaver odour in the basement even though the child is said to be still alive in the box out on the pavement.
In the confession it said "Pedro Hernandez, a former bodega stock clerk who confessed to luring 6-year-old Etan Patz into a basement and attacking him, ..." So if in that attack EP bled onto the floor of the basement and that blood decomposed after it soaked into the woodwork (say) that could be the source of the cadaver odour in the basement even though the child is said to be still alive in the box out on the pavement.But according to my understanding, Rob, that is not correct.
Dogs are regularly tested and if they fail they are out. They would trust a professional dog alert that corroborates with other evidence over a lying murderer. The dog in the Zapata case also alerted 25 years later to cadaver scent. These are not strange coincidences but dog's doing their job right.
But according to my understanding, Rob, that is not correct.I am certain you are wrong Sadie. Blood split could dry on a surface. It would have to be a thin layer but if it got into a crevice between floor boards or tiles it would be unable to dry and it could go rotten.
That would be blood from a living person that had since dried. There would be no cadavar odour in that blood even later. A blood dog might have alerted to it, but not a Cadavar dog.
Please correct me, if I am wrong.