Poll - Scent Dogs Accuracy

[AnneGuedes]

Grime is totally honest- he states under oath that  a dog's reaction is meaningless without further forensic evidence.

At least he knows the dog's limitations. Unlike dog fanatics!

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 !

[icabodcrane]

But your post is resplendent with assumptions. Biased assumptions.

 

1 ) A child disappeared without 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 place where the child was last seen alive

No  'assumptions'   there 

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?
Then try to read this one
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd

[Aiofe]

Have you ?
Then try to read this one
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd

Have briefly skimmed the hundreds of pages you posted and can find nothing to disprove my assertion that best cadaver dogs make one in ten false reactions. Perhaps you can detail where it supports a better reliability than that.

[Aiofe]

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 !

But he does admit that dog reactions are less than totally reliable.

[Aiofe]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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 ?

[Aiofe]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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.

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

[AnneGuedes]

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.
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.

[Benice]

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.

[Aiofe]

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

Statistics do not mean anything for a sing;e event in terms of the likelihood of that single event- they are an indication of likeliness over many trials.

It is as indicative as the statistic that most harm to children comes from parents or carers, rather than strangers, but that is no evidence in a single instance.

The important thing to grasp is that it is totally possible for the dogs to have reacted as they did and yet there was no cadaver scent present at that time. Can you accept that as a possibility.

As Grime says, the indications of the dogs are only confirmed if further forensics were found. In the matter of cadaverous material they were not.

[Aiofe]

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.

Your last sentence is totally false and even Grime woyld not agree with it.

It is perfectly possible (as I state above) for the dogs to have reacted as they did, yet there was never any cadaverous material present.

Additionally, you show that you misunderstand the dogs completely when you say that 'the' dog alerted. 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.

[Aiofe]

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. 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!

[AnneGuedes]

The number of times Eddie was called back is an excellent example of the Clever Hans effect.