Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[jassi]

It was only the fact that there was video of Eddie and Keela working that it became possible to identify the possible ruse  with Eddie in particular.
As Davel would have pointed out the dog alerts were not evidence, they just needed explaining.  Kate could not explain them and "neither could they".

Who ?

[Robittybob1]

Who ?

Absent friend Davel.

[Sunny]

Thank you for that article, Sunny. IMO it goes someway towards proving that until there is a reliable & proven scientific test to validate cadaver dogs' alerts to remnant scent where no body has been found, the alerts should not be allowed as evidence in any body-less murder case.

With regards to the cueing - when drug detection dogs are scenting people/their luggage, would you expect to see the handler tapping the person/luggage to indicate areas to be searched? Surely the dogs' scenting abilities are such that no prompting whatsoever is required & the dogs should be left to seek out any potential source?

All my opinion.

I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.

With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.

IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not.  IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts.  I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.

[Brietta]

I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.

With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.

IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not.  IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts.  I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.

I think you have got the wrong end of the stick if you think that anyone has accused Mr Grime of anything of the sort regarding training his dogs to make false alerts.
No-one on this forum ever has ... any such suggestion is libellous.

There is an enormous difference in what you suggest and in the proven existence of the 'clever Hans effect'.

[Sunny]

Apologies Brietta, it wasn't on this forum that I read the claims it was elsewhere.

I will look up the clever Hans effect as have never heard of it.

Also apologies to misty for doubting you.

So I guess you think the alerts are a subconscious cueing by Grime that made the dog alert.  That is what I understood by the "clever Hans effect anyway.  The only problem I have is that grime and his dogs have found cadavers haven't they.

[Robittybob1]

I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.

With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.

IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not.  IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts.  I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.

Misty is not doing that IMO.

[misty]

I don't think that the article I shared was actually about the dog alerts it was about some process that the man had developed to find cadaver molecules that hadn't been tested.

With regards to any cueing, I can't possibly comment as the video all made sense to me and I didn't see anything odd all I saw was Grime encouraging the dog from time to time.

IMO when the dog alerted IMO it had scented cadaver odour, others believe as I do now and others do not.  IMO it could possibly give the impression that you are accusing Grime of being so unprofessional as to train the dog to make false alerts.  I have seen others make that very claim and I hope I am wrong about your posts.

My first point was based on scientific attempts in the form of collecting gases from the car boot to prove that the dogs had indeed alerted to cadaver odour. Until such a time as scientists have isolated the VOC's unique to human decomposition & limited the dogs' training to same, then I do not consider that either set of evidence should be permitted in a body-less criminal trial.

I do not know what Eddie was alerting to or why. It can clearly be seen in the video that he neither alerts to CC at any time, despite Grime's claim Eddie did, nor that the last place he scented in the sofa area before barking was really the floor area behind the sofa. From one perspective, it appears that Grime may have been given some guidance as to where the scenting exercises should be concentrated. From another perspective, Grime may have simply been mistaken re. what Eddie was really alerting to - hence all the clothing in the rental villa being taken away for further examination despite no obvious alerts.
I think it would be quite hard to train a dog to give false alerts without totally confusing it. There is always the risk that something within its training parameters may be present at the location of the false alert, later proven by forensics.

All IMO.

[Sunny]

My first point was based on scientific attempts in the form of collecting gases from the car boot to prove that the dogs had indeed alerted to cadaver odour. Until such a time as scientists have isolated the VOC's unique to human decomposition & limited the dogs' training to same, then I do not consider that either set of evidence should be permitted in a body-less criminal trial.

I do not know what Eddie was alerting to or why. It can clearly be seen in the video that he neither alerts to CC at any time, despite Grime's claim Eddie did, nor that the last place he scented in the sofa area before barking was really the floor area behind the sofa. From one perspective, it appears that Grime may have been given some guidance as to where the scenting exercises should be concentrated. From another perspective, Grime may have simply been mistaken re. what Eddie was really alerting to - hence all the clothing in the rental villa being taken away for further examination despite no obvious alerts.
I think it would be quite hard to train a dog to give false alerts without totally confusing it. There is always the risk that something within its training parameters may be present at the location of the false alert, later proven by forensics.

All IMO.

I understand your post but as far as I was aware Arpad Vass' test wasn't to confirm the dogs he was simply trying to produce a process that would bypass them. That is what I understood the cite I gave to mean.

I can imagine that dogs and handlers may make mistakes, we all make mistakes but there were a large number of alerts on the McCanns property and none anywhere else as far as I can remember. 

All IMO and thank you for responding.

[Robittybob1]

I understand your post but as far as I was aware Arpad Vass' test wasn't to confirm the dogs he was simply trying to produce a process that would bypass them. That is what I understood the cite I gave to mean.

I can imagine that dogs and handlers may make mistakes, we all make mistakes but there were a large number of alerts on the McCanns property and none anywhere else as far as I can remember. 

All IMO and thank you for responding.

there were a large number of alerts on the McCanns property and none anywhere else was the "Please explain" given to Kate McCann early Sept 2007.
Kate had no explanation and she says neither did they.  (That is more or less from her book)

From her arguido statement "46 --- Signalled the presence of human blood in the trunk of the same vehicle, she said that she can not explain anything more than that already mentioned."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/48_Questions_07_09_07.htm

[Sunny]

Misty you mentioned Eddie's head was up and Keela's was down, perhaps this will help explain why.

Grime added Eddie did not seem interested in the vehicles but in a scent that was wafting in the air, based on the way the dog held his nose upward. Grime said Eddie then "hit" on an abandoned house next door. Testimony shows that house was never repaired after a fire gutted the inside and killed a child several years ago.

He did add

During lengthy cross-examination Grime said there is no evidence to show Eddie smelled anything incriminating against or linked to Mr. Parker. Like Higgins, Grime said cadaver dogs can only prove useful when there is other evidence that corroborates the dog's "hits."

http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html

This is in the Sam Parker murder case by the way.  I don't know anything about it but saw Grime mentioned in relation to it & found this.

[Alice Purjorick]

Apologies Brietta, it wasn't on this forum that I read the claims it was elsewhere.

 

Also apologies to misty for doubting you.

So I guess you think the alerts are a subconscious cueing by Grime that made the dog alert.  That is what I understood by the "clever Hans effect anyway.  The only problem I have is that grime and his dogs have found cadavers haven't they.

Well worth doing. Going to the tree is always best rather than picking up some mushy windfall....
snip>>>>>>

Other scientists, however, remained sceptical.

In 1907, Oskar Pfungst, in collaboration with Stumpf, re-tested Hans in a classic case of psychology. A group of thirteen scientists was assembled, known as the "Hans Commission".>>>>>>snip.
"The other major finding, was that Hans could only answer correctly if the questioner also knew the answer to the question. When the questioner did not know the answer to the question, Hans could not find the answer".


Join up the dots on that one.

[misty]

Misty you mentioned Eddie's head was up and Keela's was down, perhaps this will help explain why.

Grime added Eddie did not seem interested in the vehicles but in a scent that was wafting in the air, based on the way the dog held his nose upward. Grime said Eddie then "hit" on an abandoned house next door. Testimony shows that house was never repaired after a fire gutted the inside and killed a child several years ago.

He did add

During lengthy cross-examination Grime said there is no evidence to show Eddie smelled anything incriminating against or linked to Mr. Parker. Like Higgins, Grime said cadaver dogs can only prove useful when there is other evidence that corroborates the dog's "hits."

http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html

This is in the Sam Parker murder case by the way.  I don't know anything about it but saw Grime mentioned in relation to it & found this.

Eddie was originally trained as an air-scenting dog which is why his head was often raised to detect scent. His method of alerting was not standard for a cadaver dog.

[G-Unit]

Eddie was originally trained as an air-scenting dog which is why his head was often raised to detect scent. His method of alerting was not standard for a cadaver dog.

I think all cadaver dogs are air-scenting dogs.

[Sunny]

Eddie was originally trained as an air-scenting dog which is why his head was often raised to detect scent. His method of alerting was not standard for a cadaver dog.

I was attempting to answer this post of yours misty

Keela had to have her nose very close to the source before she would alert. However, Grime stated that Eddie had alerted to the floor tiles , whereas his nose was appears to be directed at the sofa fabric right before the barking.
Was Keela given the opportunity to examine the sofa at close quarters?
Was the cellular material beneath the floor tiles a chance finding rather than what Eddie actually alerted to?
Could realisation of a sofa alert have been useful to the investigation?

Perhaps eddie was not alerting to the sofa at all.

[Brietta]

Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
Martin Grime ... Rogatory interview ... Dated May 14 2008

The problem as I see it is that Martin Grime's professional opinion, that anyone who likes can interpret whatever meaning they like from the dogs' reaction, gets totally ignored.

Once the dog has done it's bit ... it is then up to the human component to make sense of what the dog is indicating and to prove or disprove its value using technology which is acceptable to a court and the result of which is capable of being explained and understood by that court.

Martin Grime has explained it in words of one syllable ... why is it that people disregard his professional opinion and are still chanting ... 'dogs don't lie' ?