Amaral and the dogs

[pathfinder73]

Rex Stolkham did not produce the FOI answers.

South Yorkshire Police did (Grime's former employer)

Go to the source about Eddie working for the FBI and his results at their body farm using human cadavers. Theresa Parker case - Eddie was shown in court detecting cadaver scent. Her remains were later found.

We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom.

Grime testified he was paid $450 a day, plus travel and living expenses, by the FBI to search some areas in Walker County in connection with Teresa Parker's disappearance.

During a visit to Parker's home back in September 2007 Grime said he and Eddie sniffed around their garage.

"He immediately gave a positive bark response within the garage between a truck parked to the left of the entrance and a boat parked to the right," Grime said.

[stephen25000]

.........and a tad bit more from Amazon.

'  ''The third FOI answer (which I believe Carana has) asked, straightforwardly, what training or preparation Eddie had received to equip him for his duties as a police dog.

The answer was that Eddie's training was in conformance with standard ACPO guidelines.

Then a link was given to the ACPO dog-training manual.

As you would expect, the ACPO dog-training manual says nothing about sending dogs to America. It explains in detail how dog-training courses are set up in the UK using pig carcasses and pig scents.''

Trying to claim that this means the dog was not taken to America is like me saying I have taken an advanced driving course, you asking the DVLA if I have passed my test, and them saying ''yes''. The fact that I have taken and passed my test does not mean I have not also taken some additional training.

That FOI request does not mention training in America.
The one that does received an answer in the positive.

So yes, he did take the dog to America for training. To claim otherwise is just a bloody lie  '

[Brietta]

He was questioned as a witness in a missing person case, a status that changed when sniffer dogs indicated that a body had been in Pacteau’s car. DNA samples taken from his apartment showed traces of Ms Buckley’s blood.
-----
His status changed from witness to suspect after a cadaver dog alerted. Just as happened in the Mccann case. So dogs can change the course of an investigation.

 A pertinent point on a dog thread.

That is the only point I was making, and not comparing the two cases in any other way and it is mean spirited of you to suggest anything else!

The point you are making is a spurious one.

The direction of the investigation was firmly fixed on him as the last person to have had any contact with the missing person.

The dog alert in the vehicle was corroborated by the blood found in the car.

On the strength of the evidence found including the victim's remains the perpetrator was brought to trial.

So it most definitely is not  "Just as happened in the Mccann case."

 

[stephen25000]

....and more for ferryman.

' The relevant part of the FOI answer is as follows

''"(PC GRIMES) has deployed police dog 'Eddie' to train on human remains in the US. This training has been valuable as it is not possible to utilise human remains in the UK. A full report from the F.B.I. to document his training and operational deployments whilst in America remains pending"

"Deployments have been on a national scale and a recent visit to the F.B.I. in America has created some income generation potential in terms of training."

"Complete sponsored visit to FBI to educate on C.S.I. Dog capabilities - Achieved"

Earlier, ferryman claimed this:

''There are actually 3 FOI answers (two in my possession) that, between them confirm Eddie was never sent to America to be trained on human remains.'' '


Mmmm.

[pegasus]

@Anna Thanks
@Mercury Thanks.
The scent pads were placed in direct contact with skin of abdomen.
So the transfer to the pad is actually instant IMO.
The pad started at 70 minutes was in skin contact until 90 minutes. No dogs alerted to that.
And the pad started at 85 minutes was in skin contact until 105 minutes. One of the 5 dogs alerted to that.
So 90 minutes (1 hour 30 minutes) is not enough IMO.
This means the minimum PMI interval required is 105 minutes (1 hour 45 minutes) IMO

[mercury]

The point you are making is a spurious one.

The direction of the investigation was firmly fixed on him as the last person to have had any contact with the missing person.

The dog alert in the vehicle was corroborated by the blood found in the car.

On the strength of the evidence found including the victim's remains the perpetrator was brought to trial.

So it most definitely is not  "Just as happened in the Mccann case."

Do continue to make a meal out of nothing except a comment about how cadaver dogs can change the course of an investigation if it pleases you

[mercury]

@Anna Thanks
@Mercury Thanks.
The scent pads were placed in direct contact with skin of abdomen.
So the transfer to the pad is actually instant IMO.
The pad started at 70 minutes was in skin contact until 90 minutes. No dogs alerted to that.
And the pad started at 85 minutes was in skin contact until 105 minutes. One of the 5 dogs alerted to that.
IMO this means the minimum PMI interval required is 105 minutes.
That's 1 hour 45 minutes.

Well,no, from the site:

The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.

That is 85 minutes

[Anna]

Well,no, from the site:

The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.

That is 85 minutes

I think that was before the pads were put in place to absorb the scent, Mercury

[mercury]

I think that was before the pads were put in place to absorb the scent, Mercury

Eh?

What does  the "correct response to " refer to then if not the pads?

[pegasus]

Well,no, from the site:

The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes.

That is 85 minutes

Was the "85 minutes" pad started at 45 minutes and removed at 85 minutes?
Or started at 85 minutes and removed at 105 minutes?
That is the question.

[mercury]

Was the "85 minutes" pad started at 45 minutes and removed at 85 minutes?
Or started at 85 minutes and removed at 105 minutes?
That is the question.

I think the clue is in the phrase "correct response" (by the dogs)
A response comes after the scent pad is utilised and presented to the dogs
Thats my understanding anyway

[Anna]

Eh?

What does  the "correct response to " refer to then if not the pads?

Is referring to the dogs, I believe.

[mercury]

Is referring to the dogs, I believe.

Yes Anna
They say the shortest PMI is 1 hour 25 minutes (ie time from death) that they recieved a correct response to, so, IMO, that means a dog or more than one alerted to a pad that was placed on or near the body 85 mins from death

[mercury]

Was the "85 minutes" pad started at 45 minutes and removed at 85 minutes?
Or started at 85 minutes and removed at 105 minutes?
That is the question.

No mention of pads in the section of the report, just the words, the dog alerted correctly after 85 mins (PMI) speaks for itself

If Im reading it all wrong, happy to be corrected

[pegasus]

Even an 85 minutes minimum rubbishes the theory stated in that disputed book and film doesn't it?
Because 9.10 to 10.00 is only 50 minutes.