Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Lace]

I tend to agree with Swindells on Cuddle cat, there is a good chance he thought it was a toy to play with. But Swindells has never came out and said Eddies search of the Car or Apartment is bullshit though has he.

Personally I don't think Madeleine would have been in 5a long enough to leave the scent of death.   No gas escapes the dead body in the first stage of decomposition.   As to the car I find that absolutely ridiculous,  imagine the state of the body after that long!!  There would be a very strong scent that humans would smell.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Personally I don't think Madeleine would have been in 5a long enough to leave the scent of death.   No gas escapes the dead body in the first stage of decomposition.   As to the car I find that absolutely ridiculous,  imagine the state of the body after that long!!  There would be a very strong scent that humans would smell.

I don’t know enough about the chemistry to say how long a body would have to lay, I know tests were done with fully grown adults but never I believe with small children. And there was a smell in the car that humans could smell wasn’t there but whether a corpse was there I don’t know.

[Venturi Swirl]

His role was to testify that his dog alerted to the scent he was trained to alert to. It was the role of the prosecutor to convince the jury what the significance of the alerts was.

He clearly failed to convince the jury then, because if he had convinced them that the accused’s house was rife with cadaver odour, undoubtedly the verdict would have been different.  IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

Hence he, the alerts and the science cannot be relied upon to give a straight answer.  He basically throws Eddie’s alerts under the bus with that paragraph though doesn’t he?

Doesn’t he?

[Eleanor]

“No, I did not say that I would produce my Cite.  Are you incapable of understanding plain English?  Could as opposed to would.”

So you can produce it but just won’t?

I believe the cite I produced was the one G-Unit was referencing but maybe she can confirm this and then if this satisfies you that it is indeed the judge she was referring to you can provide your available cite that you won’t provide.

Gracias.

Got it.  No, I won't.  I will not be told to produce a Cite when my adversary has refused to answer her initial accusation without a Cite.

You believe that the Cite you produced was the one that G Unit was referring to?  How do you know that?

Oh, and nor do I take kindly to being accused of lying or playing games.  For which I require an apology.

Never push me too far.  And Too Far has been gone.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Got it.  No, I won't.  I will not be told to produce a Cite when my adversary has refused to answer her initial accusation without a Cite.

You believe that the Cite you produced was the one that G Unit was referring to?  How do you know that?

Oh, and nor do I take kindly to being accused of lying or playing games.  For which I require an apology.

Never push me too far.  And Too Far has been gone.

I have politely asked you for the cite, not told. I am prepared to wait until G-Unit confirms or denies this was the judge she was referring to.
I have never accused you of anything, please point out where this occurred and I will apologise profusely.
I do believe you have the cite but just won’t give it to me for some reason that I can't work out.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Doesn’t he?

Yes he does, I agree. But if you read through the gist of the paper, he is advocating to allow human remains in test conditions in the UK to improve the capabilities of the dogs to find purely human remains and not animal(ie. pig). But maybe his thinking is flawed as he testified that dogs trained on human remains in the USA also alerted to pig remains. I don’t believe he is wrong to push this angle as I can see being trained on the thing you are expecting to find is preferable to a quasi substitute.

[G-Unit]

“No, I did not say that I would produce my Cite.  Are you incapable of understanding plain English?  Could as opposed to would.”

So you can produce it but just won’t?

I believe the cite I produced was the one G-Unit was referencing but maybe she can confirm this and then if this satisfies you that it is indeed the judge she was referring to you can provide your available cite that you won’t provide.

Gracias.

You did indeed find the correct cite, but I very much doubt that you'll get the cite you want in return, because imo there is no such thing.

Interestingly, the judge would have considered allowing the handler's evidence to be heard but the three dogs used had a very poor record;

the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/09/01/2904811.htm

So the judge wasn't rejecting testimony by all cadaver dog handlers, just by these handlers whose three dogs had a really poor record.

[Eleanor]

I have politely asked you for the cite, not told. I am prepared to wait until G-Unit confirms or denies this was the judge she was referring to.
I have never accused you of anything, please point out where this occurred and I will apologise profusely.
I do believe you have the cite but just won’t give it to me for some reason that I can't work out.

Do you not think that this is a problem between G Unit and me?  And probably best left to her and I?

Perhaps you don't understand the dynamics, but you can't fight the battles of another person.  We have all been at for far too long.

I am just not having anyone making a statement without a Cite and then demanding a Cite from me for my reply.  This has to be ridiculous.

You all might never see my Cite, especially as I am not known for my research.  But when shite comes to bust don't doubt me.  I don't lie or twist things to suit myself.  What would be the point?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Do you not think that this is a problem between G Unit and me?  And probably best left to her and I?

Perhaps you don't understand the dynamics, but you can't fight the battles of another person.  We have all been at for far too long.

I am just not having anyone making a statement without a Cite and then demanding a Cite from me for my reply.  This has to be ridiculous.

You all might never see my Cite, especially as I am not known for my research.  But when shite comes to bust don't doubt me.  I don't lie or twist things to suit myself.  What would be the point?

I am fighting no-ones battles. I am interested to hear more about this dog handler. Nothing more nothing less.
As a moderator you say you have the evidence but won't supply it to me because you are in an argument with G-Unit, isn't it the rules that claims have to be backed up with a cite? Anyone else can give me it I don't mind

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You did indeed find the correct cite, but I very much doubt that you'll get the cite you want in return, because imo there is no such thing.

Interestingly, the judge would have considered allowing the handler's evidence to be heard but the three dogs used had a very poor record;

the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/09/01/2904811.htm

Thanks G-Unit, I thought it would be the one.
The funny thing about the Zapata case is the Judge chose to stray outside of the norms to admit or deny the dog evidence. The norm was to use logged training, certification and blind training sessions.
I have copied and pasted what he deemed an equitable way to verify the dogs worth

“The judge concluded that any/each time a cadaver dog searched and cleared an area without providing an indication and no person or other tool returned to the search location to verify that there WASN’T something there, the dog’s conclusion that the area did not contain the odor of human remains had
not been confirmed and was therefore was not reliable.”
 
Doesn’t seem very fair to me, if they didn’t dig areas where the dog didn’t alert to prove there wasn't a body there that was a fail. No wonder the percentages were so low.

http://caninesearchsolutions.com/files/Zapata.doc

[Venturi Swirl]

Yes he does, I agree. But if you read through the gist of the paper, he is advocating to allow human remains in test conditions in the UK to improve the capabilities of the dogs to find purely human remains and not animal(ie. pig). But maybe his thinking is flawed as he testified that dogs trained on human remains in the USA also alerted to pig remains. I don’t believe he is wrong to push this angle as I can see being trained on the thing you are expecting to find is preferable to a quasi substitute.

Thank you for your reply.  I think we can now state categorically (can we not?) that the dog alerts in 2007 were completely worthless from any legal point of view, and have since been consigned to the dustbin of history by the dog handler himself on the basis that Eddie trained on animal matter and therefore the alerts could not be considered wholly reliable. 

[Eleanor]

You did indeed find the correct cite, but I very much doubt that you'll get the cite you want in return, because imo there is no such thing.

Interestingly, the judge would have considered allowing the handler's evidence to be heard but the three dogs used had a very poor record;

the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/09/01/2904811.htm

So the judge wasn't rejecting testimony by all cadaver dog handlers, just by these handlers whose three dogs had a really poor record.

Try Casey Anthony.  Judge Belvin Perry Junior wasn't all that impressed with Cadaver Dogs. 

The Dog Handler of Bones the Cadaver Dog was the one who said that sometimes these dogs will go for something lesser than absolute.  Her name is Kristin Brewer.  And I do have her testimony on Cross Examination.

Casey Anthony was acquitted.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Thank you for your reply.  I think we can now state categorically (can we not?) that the dog alerts in 2007 were completely worthless from any legal point of view, and have since been consigned to the dustbin of history by the dog handler himself on the basis that Eddie trained on animal matter and therefore the alerts could not be considered wholly reliable.

No, as I said Mr Grime is a master of contradiction, he has also said that he always trusts his dogs alerts. Dog alerts have always included the possibility of pig alerts as it seems the scent is similar. That won't change with human remain training IMO.

[Eleanor]

I am fighting no-ones battles. I am interested to hear more about this dog handler. Nothing more nothing less.
As a moderator you say you have the evidence but won't supply it to me because you are in an argument with G-Unit, isn't it the rules that claims have to be backed up with a cite? Anyone else can give me it I don't mind

Tell that to G Unit.  This is what the argument was all about.  Don't demand a Cite when you are not prepared  to give a Cite yourself.

But, I'll tell you what,  this stupid, never ending demand for ridiculous Cites will end.