The dogs.....

[stephen25000]

'the dogs job was to find forensics.............'


What a load of rollocks. 

[Carana]

if any forensics were found that put the place of death as 5A then you wouldn't need grime to testify...the dogs job was to find forensics to support death in the appt...they didn't find any

Yes, absolutely. ETA: Hmm. It's not the dogs' job to find forensics, really. It's up to the forensics officers to find any evidence that could account for the dogs' alerts.

If the dog had alerted and there had been a loft or cellar connected to the apartment, then it would have been worth searching further. It doesn't seem that either exists.

I've always wondered if there is a sanitation void somewhere below the apartment and if so, was it checked?

[Mr Gray]

'the dogs job was to find forensics.............'


What a load of rollocks. 

find forensics...to be analysed...to be used as evidence...if you don't understand that after 7 years ,,,,,,,

[stephen25000]

find forensics...to be analysed...to be used as evidence...if you don't understand that after 7 years ,,,,,,,

Dogs don't find 'forensics'.

They detect scents.

Forensics is the science involved in the analysis of 'data'.

[Angelo222]

Dogs don't find 'forensics'.

They detect scents.

Forensics is the science involved in the analysis of 'data'.

...and there will be lots of samples which hitherto have not revealed anything but as forensic science advances this could very well change. It wasn't that long ago (before 2001) that DNA was an unknown quantity and here we are 13 years later depending on it!

[Jean-Pierre]

Exactly and if forensics put the place of death in 5a then you have closed the circle.  The dog alerts by virtue of the forensics then having evidentially reliable renders them designated as circumstantial evidence. The dog handler would in such circumstances then be required to testify.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the second line of my post.   

[Mr Gray]

Dogs don't find 'forensics'.

They detect scents.

Forensics is the science involved in the analysis of 'data'.

detect what scents.....forensics is short for forensic evidence...the dogs task is to find forensic evidence via scent detection

[Mr Gray]

...and there will be lots of samples which hitherto have not revealed anything but as forensic science advances this could very well change. It wasn't that long ago (before 2001) that DNA was an unknown quantity and here we are 13 years later depending on it!

there were not lots of samples

[sadie]

Forensic evidence was recovered from the scene.

yep .... and none of it pointed to Madeleines death.

Not one jot.  Nada ....  NOTHING

[Wonderfulspam]

yep .... and none of it pointed to Madeleines death.

Not one jot.  Nada ....  NOTHING

You claimed the forensics proved Maddie didn't die there.

Run that one by me again?

[slartibartfast]

ORLY ?

Yes

[stephen25000]

detect what scents.....forensics is short for forensic evidence...the dogs task is to find forensic evidence via scent detection

Read my previous answer again dave.

Then try to understand.

[Mr Gray]

Read my previous answer again dave.

Then try to understand.

stop saying stupid things like that...the dogs role is to find evidence....blood...body fluids...you have made fool of yourself once again

[slartibartfast]

dogs don't find scents they detect scents give off by evidence...

I am glad we agree that the alert arises from evidence.

[stephen25000]

to me and many others it refers to forensic evidence collected at the crime scene  ie...the forensics were inconclusive

'the dogs job was to find forensics'

No the 'job' of the dogs was to indicate the presence of a variety of compounds and therefore the possibility of a body. That's why they were there.

Forensics is the application of scientific principles and analysis to the 'evidence' found to see what, if any significance it may have.