Poll - Scent Dogs Accuracy

[Aiofe]

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....

There is science (truth) and belief.

You are hanging on to your biased beliefs against the results of scientific truth. If you choose that route, you are a slave to your own erroneous beliefs.

Your choice.

[Aiofe]

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

But he fails to provide any scientific support or evidence for his suggestion- as it is totally absent from scientific research. At best, dogs are mere indicators.

[Aiofe]

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

 It is uninformed by any scientific backing- pure biased belief.

[Aiofe]

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.

All the dogs in the quoted experiments are similarly certified as Eddie and Keela.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Aiofe]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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.

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 

[Redblossom]

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

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

[Benice]

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.



     

[AnneGuedes]

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.
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.

[icabodcrane]

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.



   

Well no,  Benice  ...  that is not an undeniable  'truth' 

Let me explain

The weather man said tonight that it will rain tomorrow  ....  that is an undeniable truth  ...  he said  it

He  might  be wrong, and it  might  not rain  ...  but that is not an undeniable  'truth',  it is merely a proposition 

In the same way,  saying that the cadaver dog  might  have been wrong, is merely a proposition  (  rather than an undeniable    'truth' )

In short,  that which  IS  true,  stands apart from that which  MIGHT  be true

The only undeniable  'truths'  we have,  in this instance are  :

1 )  A child 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 place where the child was last seen alive

[Aiofe]

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

But your post is resplendent with assumptions. Biased assumptions.

[Aiofe]

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

I have quoted all research I can find that shows anything to do with scent dogs. Nothing suggests that they are anything near infallible.

[Aiofe]

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.

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

[AnneGuedes]

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.