Amaral and the dogs

[pegasus]

That is still using a very recently deceased person in a test scenario.  I'd like to see some actual cites of similar tests using people who have been dead for two hours or less.

Yes but it is easier to do because there is no need to keep the body.
Also it is possible to get lots of scent pads of one subject.
Do one scent pad at PMI 10 mins, another at PMI 20 minutes, etc.
I agree there is a big need for a detailed study to be done.
The best we have so far is the CSST study (no dogs alerted to a 70 minute pad, one dog out of five alerted to a 85 minute pad).
I will happily volunteer for it if I can have a flexible appointment date.

[Anna]

Yes but it is easier to do because there is no need to keep the body.
Also it is possible to get lots of scent pads of one subject.
Do one scent pad at PMI 10 mins, another at PMI 20 minutes, etc.
I agree there is a big need for a detailed study to be done.
The best we have so far is the CSST study (no dogs alerted to a 70 minute pad, one dog out of five alerted to a 85 minute pad).
I will happily volunteer for it if I can have a flexible appointment date.

OH No! I wouldn't want people pawing all over my body when I'm dead or covering me with scent pads, Yuk!
Besides I'm allergic to so many materials.

[pathfinder73]

is there a world ranking of EVRD dogs?

Why don't you contact him to find out about Eddie.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-stockham/39/6a8/aa0

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. (MG)

Lane tried to diss Eddie about coconut island.

Grime submitted Morse and Keela's training reports into evidence. Over the course of 49 tests, Morse gave no false negative or false positive responses to tests in controlled environments. He gave one “unexplained” response, which was a single bark in a “blank” room. Morse scored 100 percent in tests on December 2 and December 6, 2011. Morse was tested on variety of dates between January 21, 2011, and February 13, 2013. Morse scored 100 percent in all but one test, on which he scored 95 to 100 percent. Morse did not give false positive responses to animal remains during his tests.

Lane contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to impeach Grime with evidence that one of his cadaver dogs, Eddie, in 2009 had alerted to the odor of decomposition on what was determined to be a piece of coconut shell. We disagree.
The basis of Lane's claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to admit certain impeachment evidence. Lane contends that Grime testified that his dogs are 100 percent accurate, and that counsel should have impeached Grime with the evidence involving Eddie. Lane bases his argument on a factual predicate that the record does not support.
The defendant must show the factual predicates of his or her claims on appeal.68 Here, Grime testified that Morse's proficiency test results were “very high” and that, during specific training dates before and after December 4, 2011, Morse tested 100 percent positive and with 100 percent efficiency. However, Grime did not testify that “his dogs” were 100 percent accurate or flawless. To the contrary, when asked whether Morse was “pretty much perfect,” Grime testified that he “wouldn't say that,” and that his dogs were not 100 percent correct.
Because Grime never testified that his dogs were 100 percent accurate, evidence of a specific instance in which one of Grime's dogs was inaccurate was not probative of Grime's truthfulness and would not have been valid impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we reject Lane's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel because he has failed to establish the factual basis of his claim.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html#sthash.XUzHeLLF.dpuf

[Mr Gray]

Why don't you contact him to find out about Eddie.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-stockham/39/6a8/aa0

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. (MG)

Lane tried to diss Eddie about coconut island.

Grime submitted Morse and Keela's training reports into evidence. Over the course of 49 tests, Morse gave no false negative or false positive responses to tests in controlled environments. He gave one “unexplained” response, which was a single bark in a “blank” room. Morse scored 100 percent in tests on December 2 and December 6, 2011. Morse was tested on variety of dates between January 21, 2011, and February 13, 2013. Morse scored 100 percent in all but one test, on which he scored 95 to 100 percent. Morse did not give false positive responses to animal remains during his tests.

Lane contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to impeach Grime with evidence that one of his cadaver dogs, Eddie, in 2009 had alerted to the odor of decomposition on what was determined to be a piece of coconut shell. We disagree.
The basis of Lane's claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to admit certain impeachment evidence. Lane contends that Grime testified that his dogs are 100 percent accurate, and that counsel should have impeached Grime with the evidence involving Eddie. Lane bases his argument on a factual predicate that the record does not support.
The defendant must show the factual predicates of his or her claims on appeal.68 Here, Grime testified that Morse's proficiency test results were “very high” and that, during specific training dates before and after December 4, 2011, Morse tested 100 percent positive and with 100 percent efficiency. However, Grime did not testify that “his dogs” were 100 percent accurate or flawless. To the contrary, when asked whether Morse was “pretty much perfect,” Grime testified that he “wouldn't say that,” and that his dogs were not 100 percent correct.
Because Grime never testified that his dogs were 100 percent accurate, evidence of a specific instance in which one of Grime's dogs was inaccurate was not probative of Grime's truthfulness and would not have been valid impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we reject Lane's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel because he has failed to establish the factual basis of his claim.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html#sthash.XUzHeLLF.dpuf

rubbish I'm afraid

[Alfred R Jones]

Why don't you contact him to find out about Eddie.

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rex-stockham/39/6a8/aa0

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. (MG)

Lane tried to diss Eddie about coconut island.

Grime submitted Morse and Keela's training reports into evidence. Over the course of 49 tests, Morse gave no false negative or false positive responses to tests in controlled environments. He gave one “unexplained” response, which was a single bark in a “blank” room. Morse scored 100 percent in tests on December 2 and December 6, 2011. Morse was tested on variety of dates between January 21, 2011, and February 13, 2013. Morse scored 100 percent in all but one test, on which he scored 95 to 100 percent. Morse did not give false positive responses to animal remains during his tests.

Lane contends that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to impeach Grime with evidence that one of his cadaver dogs, Eddie, in 2009 had alerted to the odor of decomposition on what was determined to be a piece of coconut shell. We disagree.
The basis of Lane's claim is that counsel was ineffective for failing to admit certain impeachment evidence. Lane contends that Grime testified that his dogs are 100 percent accurate, and that counsel should have impeached Grime with the evidence involving Eddie. Lane bases his argument on a factual predicate that the record does not support.
The defendant must show the factual predicates of his or her claims on appeal.68 Here, Grime testified that Morse's proficiency test results were “very high” and that, during specific training dates before and after December 4, 2011, Morse tested 100 percent positive and with 100 percent efficiency. However, Grime did not testify that “his dogs” were 100 percent accurate or flawless. To the contrary, when asked whether Morse was “pretty much perfect,” Grime testified that he “wouldn't say that,” and that his dogs were not 100 percent correct.
Because Grime never testified that his dogs were 100 percent accurate, evidence of a specific instance in which one of Grime's dogs was inaccurate was not probative of Grime's truthfulness and would not have been valid impeachment evidence. Accordingly, we reject Lane's assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel because he has failed to establish the factual basis of his claim.
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html#sthash.XUzHeLLF.dpuf

There isn't a world ranking for EVRD dogs is there?

[pegasus]

So you think the t shirt, Kate's trousers and possibly the white t'shirt in the wardrobe, all came from that shelf that may have been contaminated. That could mean many things, considering the amount of people with their clothing and suitcases, who had used 5A.
What do think was responsible for the X contamination?

I don't know. My "How to not overcomplicate things" book by Ockham is on a cupboard shelf under a pile of clothes, it is in direct contact with the surface of the shelf, and also in direct contact with a few of the clothes.
BTW has anyone else here read it?

[pegasus]

Imcoconutment is the accurate legal word (see Swallow v. Swallow, 1975).

[mercury]

Imcoconutment is the accurate legal word.

 

....

P.S. Thanks for the clothes scaling, but I have made my views clear, not going to labour the issue any more

[pegasus]

OH No! I wouldn't want people pawing all over my body when I'm dead or covering me with scent pads, Yuk!
Besides I'm allergic to so many materials.

:)
Back to Amaral, dogs, and the wardrobe. Grey-white check turns to grey when blurred.

[Anna]

:)
Back to Amaral, dogs, and the wardrobe. Grey-white check turns to grey when blurred.

True

[mercury]

The faith people put in Anne Guide's transcripts is no odds to anyone ....

Then you don't have the right to quote anything from any of them in support of any argument,surely.

[mercury]

Interesting that the wearer of the trousers was constituted arguida and a book was written in justification.

Both of the couple were made arguidos and not just because the dog alerted to her trousers or his t shirt.

[Brietta]

Both of the couple were made arguidos and not just because the dog alerted to her trousers or his t shirt.

The dog tossed Sean's tee shirt around ~ which apparently passes as an 'alert' in some circles.

[mercury]

The dog tossed Sean's tee shirt around ~ which apparently passes as an 'alert' in some circles.

Grime was the handler, if it was good enough for him, it should be for everyone ele, and of course, it wasn't just Sean's t shirt the dog was interested in, but Gerry's white t-shirt as well (Pathfinder posted about it a short whle ago)

[ferryman]

Both of the couple were made arguidos and not just because the dog alerted to her trousers or his t shirt.

Not just because?

Ian Horrocks made reference to the irrelevant behaviour of the dogs ....