Poll - Scent Dogs Accuracy

[Angelo222]

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.

[Anna]

Used correctly and in the right environment search dogs of every variety are priceless.

I agree

[mercury]

and there is no professional evidence Grime used his dogs incorrectly

[sadie]

and there is no professional evidence Grime used his dogs incorrectly

.... but he misconstrued certain of the alerts.

[G-Unit]

.... but he misconstrued certain of the alerts.

No he didn't.

[sadie]

No he didn't.

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?

[G-Unit]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

So Grime evaded answering the question

[Anna]

I believe that this report was Feb 2008.

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm

[mercury]

Perhaps the process/ease/difficulty is different for  remnant scent as opposed to actual remains.

[sadie]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[Anna]

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.

Eddie was trained on human blood and dead Pigs.

He alerted to blood from the  living(Gerry for one) and IIRC he alerted to semen(from a living person I presume) in Jersey.

[Anna]

Another good read.

A cadaver dog can find something as small as a single tooth or a drop of blood.
SAR dogs will alert to remains if they find them

Dogs SAR and Cadaver etc.
http://www.felsteadgundogs.com/scenttrackingdogs.htm

[sadie]

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.

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; and have never been trained to locate any scent other than that of decomposed human tissue.

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.