Amaral and the dogs

[stephen25000]

Didn't you know about the unidentified D.N.A Stephen?

I would imagine they would have seen if it matched any of the previous occupants and cleaners,  or they wouldn't call it 'unidentified'.

Yes, I read the report.

Have they done that ?

Have all the people who have been known to be in the apartment been traced ?

[Alfred R Jones]

Actually you did refer to me before on here in rather unceremonious terms.

 

Oh dear, I am sorry. 

[ferryman]

Ah, you mean the Mills and Boon special ? 

I wasn't referring to Amaral's book at all ...

[stephen25000]

I wasn't referring to Amaral's book at all ...

Neither was I.

[Mr Gray]

Yes, I read the report.

Have they done that ?

Have all the people who have been known to be in the apartment been traced ?

They didn't bother because they knew the parents were involved

[Alice Purjorick]

Actually you did refer to me before on here in rather unceremonious terms.

 

What with that and ferryman and davel tampering with posts (duly reported to admin) it's getting like a bleedin' kindergarten round here.

[Eleanor]

I did once say, way back in the beginning that DNA wasn't all it was being cracked up to be.  Still isn't, actually.  I was subjected to a torrent of abuse which quite shocked me.  Sadly, I have become accustomed to that now.

As has been proved in this case, there are too many variables, especially in the absence of a body, which could suggest in itself that there isn't one.

And even with a 99% match, it still wouldn't prove anything, unless it was from a complete stranger.

[stephen25000]

I did once say, way back in the beginning that DNA wasn't all it was being cracked up to be.  Still isn't, actually.  I was subjected to a torrent of abuse which quite shocked me.  Sadly, I have become accustomed to that now.

As has been proved in this case, there are too many variables, especially in the absence of a body, which could suggest in itself that there isn't one.

And even with a 99% match, it still wouldn't prove anything, unless it was from a complete stranger.

Naturally, as you would expect Eleanor, i disagree with you as regards a body.

Even Redwood admitted Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive, which then beggars the question of the dogs.

The sheer fact that no trace of her has been found since that fateful day, adds to the conclusion that she died.

[Brietta]

What with that and ferryman and davel tampering with posts (duly reported to admin) it's getting like a bleedin' kindergarten round here.

I think sometimes there is a lot to be learned from various sites on the internet ... quite a few American ones featuring discussion among dog trainers ... one or two discussing criminal cases etc.

Posters seem to be eager to share information (and yes Madeleine McCann's case does feature) discuss differences and to actually absorb the information given out and once a fact has been established that is it until something new and compelling supersedes what has gone on before.

**Snip
". . . The rapid proliferation of law enforcement and ancillary personnel making widely varied claims about the use of dogs trained to cadaver scent, and the lack of any significant literature on the subject, prompted the authors to research what training and performance requirements might be important for consideration in the use of dogs in the gathering of evidence having forensic importance. . ."

". . . 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.
Decomp Dog
A term used to describe a canine that will indicate when a scent source is human tissue, blood, semen, urine, feces, and materials that have been handled and worn by humans; often cross trained for other purposes.
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. . ."

". . .There is dispute within the scientific community about what it actually is that an animal scents that allows differentiation. Some researchers maintain that bacterial action on biological material results in an outgassing of volatile fatty acids, methane, urea, cadaverine, and various ionic compounds.
-3 Others believe that individual recognition occurs by differentiation at the level of the major histocompatability complex (MHC) which causes unique protein markers to form on the surface of cells.
-4 In any case, some form of chemical marking occurs that probably has evolutionary and organism-survival significance. . . ."
(Note: The following exerpt was 3 points out of 7 total. All need to be read. Only 3 were quoted so as to not be quoting too much material in keeping with the WS TOS.)
". . . Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions:
Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue;
precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent.
Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc.
Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert. . ."

". . . 1) There is a significant potential for a dog handler to offer unintentionally misleading or improper testimony about the presence or absence of residual scent from decomposed human tissue.
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction.
It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs.
Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
3) Existing training and testing techniques in the general community of handlers now working do not address the specific and rigorous training needs for dogs that are expected to reliably detect and alert on residual scent. . ."
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
http://www.k9forensic.org/AAFSpaper.html

What happened as far as the dogs Eddie and Keela are concerned in 2007 ... must be frozen in 2007: nothing of importance was gleaned from their 'alerts' and much of what was gleaned was misinterpreted.

So perhaps if posters would take cognisance of what evidence there is from 2007 and recognise that constant discussion and trying to change what cannot be changed by constant revisiting it ... we could all move on and have adult non-repetitive discussion on the subject.
Which is actually quite a fascinating one if followed with an open mind.

[stephen25000]

I think sometimes there is a lot to be learned from various sites on the internet ... quite a few American ones featuring discussion among dog trainers ... one or two discussing criminal cases etc.

Posters seem to be eager to share information (and yes Madeleine McCann's case does feature) discuss differences and to actually absorb the information given out and once a fact has been established that is it until something new and compelling supersedes what has gone on before.

**Snip
". . . The rapid proliferation of law enforcement and ancillary personnel making widely varied claims about the use of dogs trained to cadaver scent, and the lack of any significant literature on the subject, prompted the authors to research what training and performance requirements might be important for consideration in the use of dogs in the gathering of evidence having forensic importance. . ."

". . . 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.
Decomp Dog
A term used to describe a canine that will indicate when a scent source is human tissue, blood, semen, urine, feces, and materials that have been handled and worn by humans; often cross trained for other purposes.
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. . ."

". . .There is dispute within the scientific community about what it actually is that an animal scents that allows differentiation. Some researchers maintain that bacterial action on biological material results in an outgassing of volatile fatty acids, methane, urea, cadaverine, and various ionic compounds.
-3 Others believe that individual recognition occurs by differentiation at the level of the major histocompatability complex (MHC) which causes unique protein markers to form on the surface of cells.
-4 In any case, some form of chemical marking occurs that probably has evolutionary and organism-survival significance. . . ."
(Note: The following exerpt was 3 points out of 7 total. All need to be read. Only 3 were quoted so as to not be quoting too much material in keeping with the WS TOS.)
". . . Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions:
Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue;
precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent.
Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc.
Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert. . ."

". . . 1) There is a significant potential for a dog handler to offer unintentionally misleading or improper testimony about the presence or absence of residual scent from decomposed human tissue.
2) Dogs specifically trained to detect scent of decomposed human tissue can be invaluable in resolving issues related to evidence gathering and determination of investigative direction.
It is crucial, however, that dogs be used in situations appropriate to their training level, and that dog handlers are able to support their testimony about dog behavior with accurate training logs.
Any canine used for forensic purposes in the location of the scent of decomposed human tissue should never be cross-trained for any other type of scent work if the results of the animal's activities and handler's opinions are to be used for the development of probable cause.
3) Existing training and testing techniques in the general community of handlers now working do not address the specific and rigorous training needs for dogs that are expected to reliably detect and alert on residual scent. . ."
http://www.csst.org/forensic_evidence_canines.html
http://www.k9forensic.org/AAFSpaper.html

What happened as far as the dogs Eddie and Keela are concerned in 2007 ... must be frozen in 2007: nothing of importance was gleaned from their 'alerts' and much of what was gleaned was misinterpreted.

So perhaps if posters would take cognisance of what evidence there is from 2007 and recognise that constant discussion and trying to change what cannot be changed by constant revisiting it ... we could all move on and have adult non-repetitive discussion on the subject.
Which is actually quite a fascinating one if followed with an open mind.

'...with an open mind......'  ?

An open mind doesn't mean considering just one possibility.

So how about the scenario of Madeleine getting out of the apartment by herself, which some people view as a distinct possibility ?

[Eleanor]

Naturally, as you would expect Eleanor, i disagree with you as regards a body.

Even Redwood admitted Madeleine may not have left the apartment alive, which then beggars the question of the dogs.

The sheer fact that no trace of her has been found since that fateful day, adds to the conclusion that she died.

Just two sides of the same coin, Stephen.  Is Madeleine dead, or isn't she?  Neither of us know.  And neither Amaral or Eddie have proved anything.
I just go on hoping, while you don't.  It's just the sort of person that I am.  I truly do wake up every morning hoping that Madeleine has been found alive, and then I get on with my hopeful day.

And No, I do not think that you are a bad person because you don't hope for this.  The operative word being Hope.

[pathfinder73]

RESIDUAL SCENT IN BUILDINGS

One of the questions we are commonly asked as forensic canine handlers is "How long will scent last in any given situation?" This is a very complicated question, but we want to begin to unravel the secrets. We know some of the elements that will affect residual scent are heat/sun, wind, humidity and rain.

Our first project was conducted in a closed, unused building. Items were placed in different rooms for 5 hours and then removed.

What is Residual Scent?
Residual is defined by Webster's dictionary as - leaving a residue remaining effective for some time.
Within this paper we are using the term in conjunction with decomposing human scent. Residual scent searches are those conducted when no physical form is present. Residual scent is what is left when the decomposing item has been removed. It is something we cannot see and humans cannot necessarily smell.

Introduction
This project began by accident, so was not preplanned as a residual scent research paper. We make no claims to having ruled out all variables, but are using this project to learn what the variables are and how to more effectively set up our next residual scent project.

Our goal in this paper is to look at residual scent in a closed, unused building and see if we can find out how long a trained cadaver / forensic evidence dog can locate the original scent location. All the dogs used in this project ranged from those with some basic training in the finding of cadaver scent to specialized trained dogs in forensic evidence / body recovery. We see this as just the beginning of ongoing residual scent undertakings.

On November 9, 1996 several items were placed in different areas of a building. The building used was built in the 1930's and was used as classrooms up until 1995. It is part of a large developmental hospital that was built before 1900. Most of the furniture is now gone. There is still human clothing around, chairs, desks, shelves with things on them, wardrobes, curtains, and boxes of books and general effects. The facility has been closed down and most of the buildings are scheduled to be demolished.

Room #11 was used as an activity or day room. It is a large open room. The scent sources were blood (3cc) left to dry on the floor and door in the room.
Room #16 is a closet/storage room off room #11. The scent source was blood (approx. 1cc) on paper on the floor.
Room #5 is a large storage room with closets and shelves. The scent source was a soil sample with dried fluids from a gunshot to the head suicide enclosed in a 50ml vented container. The upper window has been open the whole time in this room.
Room #18 is a large living room. Scent sources were; hair mixed with cadaver scent in the fireplace flue, and a very small amount of blood inside a trash can.
Room #9 is a tiled utility area across the hall from a kitchen area. Scent source was hair and blood in a 50ml container placed in the foot of standing ironing board, so the sample was 5 feet off the ground.

Since the original set up date on November 9, 1996, we have returned to the building 4 times: January 8, 1997, April 2, 1997, July 23, 1997 and December 7, 1997. On our visit in April we found that they had removed most of the original furniture and some boxes of trash, so the building had little left in it. Two of the objects (the ironing board and a box of trash), that had held scent sources were now missing.

Results
Each dog participating in this project was able to find most or all of the locations where the decomposing scent articles had been. We saw dogs, which varied, from full alert and pinpointing to general interest in the room or area.

What we have found so far is; residual scent will last 1 year in a building with minimum environmental influence, or human disturbance. Even after the objects where the scent source had been were removed, the dogs were able to locate the rooms, general area, or pinpoint where it had been.

Each time we have worked the problem we have included teams that had not worked the area before. We now have had 16 teams work the residual scent problem. The dogs have ranged from veteran cadaver trained certified teams to 1 year old puppies (who have been training from 8 weeks of age on cadaver and residual scent).

Observations
We noticed that there was a big difference between teams that do mainly live person searching and teams that specialize in forensic evidence / body recovery searches. The general difference being, forensic evidence / body recovery dogs are searched slower, have been taught to do a fine search, check items for scent sources, and alert without seeing an object. Most live human search dogs are trained to keep looking until they find the person and then to alert. Younger and less experienced dogs had fewer problems and were willing to commit to an alert more readily than some of the mainly live human search dogs.

Questions, Variables, Problems, Future Ideas
One of the questions that we have wondered about after observing dogs who have worked the problem prior is; do the dogs remember where items were previously placed or where they alerted before and how long do they remember?

Also, what effect does having an observer that is knowledgeable of all the locations have on the team? Can the handler and or dog read body language that gives them information as to where they should look or alert?

Plans for our next visit include having first time teams work the building by themselves without an observer on deck. The handler will then report any alerts or interest to the observer by showing them on a diagram of the building. This way the handler will have to commit to what the dog has done without any input from the observer. The observer will not be able to influence the team while they are searching.

No food reward will be allowed in the building.

Our next residual scent projects will employ measurable scent items. Example: 3cc of blood mixed with 2oz of human hair, or a specific human bone. This way we can control and repeat the scent items more closely in different conditions.

Room with the blood (3cc) is not a true residual scent problem, as we have defined it, because the blood has been left on the floor and door. But we now have data on how long dogs can locate dried blood.

Our next step in studying residual scent is to set up problems in different environments. We want to compare our results with problems set up in open areas, areas with sun and shade and no building to protect the scent.

Room #11 - dried blood - dogs able to show dried blood on door and floor

Room #5 - soil with dried fluids - dog showing
inside closet where source had been

Room #18 - Hair with scent - all dogs indicated
flue area of chimney where source had been

Room #18 - area where trash can had been - dogs all indicated
area and showed pile of curtains now on floor but had been
hanging above trash can originally. Curtains are porous and
holding scent.

http://www.csst.org/residual_scent.html

[Eleanor]

'...with an open mind......'  ?

An open mind doesn't mean considering just one possibility.

So how about the scenario of Madeleine getting out of the apartment by herself, which some people view as a distinct possibility ?

Do you honestly think that I, let alone the rest of those of my thinking, have not considered other possibilities, even that of The McCanns being involved in some way?
Of course we have, down to the very last boring detail.  But it simply does not make sense.  The time, the place, the opportunity, or the motive.  And the absence of anything in the work of forensics to suggest this.

Whether or not Madeleine died by the hand of a stranger is something that I don't want to think about.  And why should I?  It isn't the purpose of this Forum at the moment.

[stephen25000]

Now you see, this is an example of a grown-up sensible post, it will be interesting to read Alice and Stephen's grown-up and sensible replies.

Brietta's post merely reflects the only scenario is 'abduction' approach.

Perhaps you should take time yet again to consider what you post before the insults fly once again.

[Eleanor]

Okay.  No insults, Please.  We are all capable of discussion without them.