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

[Sunny]

It was sunny on the first page who brought up alerts in general

My post concerned alerts in general in relation to the initial posters claims about Martin Grime. I didn't suggest we go through all alerts one by one. Perhaps that is for another thread Davel.


And of course it was not me that widened the topic it was Brietta with this as her post was prior to my own.

In my opinion Eddie is a blunt instrument instrument.  From what I recall of his performance in the villa the focus of his attention was indeterminate when giving his bark indication ... take your pick between the chair at the table ~ on top of the cupboard ~ or inside where cuddle cat was lurking.

[G-Unit]

It was sunny on the first page who brought up alerts in general

Threads wander all the time. My point is that I don't intend to.

[misty]

I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.

If the alert behind the sofa was the only alert there would be no bone of contention. In an effort to substantiate my suspicion there may have been an error with that particular alert it was necessary to introduce the nose position in other alerts made by Eddie but you appear to class that as irrelevant. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy in future of not asking for proof you have no intention of giving any consideration to.

[John]

Surely you must know by now, there is ONLY ONE PLACE within 5A where there was any chance that there might have been a cadaver scent and that was up the wall between the bed and wardrobe.  That is just the sort of position where a bedside table might had sat possibly with the ashes of a previous owner who died or even his bedclothes that he died in, IMO.  A comforting place for his widow, a bedside table close to her head where she could reach out and easily touch them.

Now how do you think that a cadaver of a child of nearly four, could have got so high up that wall?  Doesn't make sense that Madeleines cadaver could have lain so high up a wall.   Doncha think?

AIMO

An entirely possible scenario Sadie and one which would account for the alert you refer to.  However, that doesn't explain the alerts to clothing in the gym?

[Mr Gray]

The question is... IF the alerts are as reliable as some think.... 90+%........why do they have no evidential value.... And why isn't grime saying in his opinion the alerts are to cadaver scent

[misty]

An entirely possible scenario Sadie and one which would account for the alert you refer to.  However, that doesn't explain the alerts to clothing in the gym?

What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?

[Brietta]

I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.

I doubt there is a single thread on the McCann board which does not in one way or another veer entirely off topic , some even into the realms of fantasy.

In my opinion the post to which you refer reflected the very issue which you appear to think should be discussed.
 In my opinion discussion does not occur in isolation without benefit of explanation of information leading to enabling informed opinion leading to informed debate.

I have illustrated Eddie's body language using the dog videos, just as Misty has done, to comment on the opening post.

My post to which you object is reprised as follows ...

In my opinion Eddie is a blunt instrument .  From what I recall of his performance in the villa the focus of his attention was indeterminate when giving his bark indication ... take your pick between the chair at the table ~ on top of the cupboard ~ or inside where cuddle cat was lurking.

His priority seems to be turning to directly face his owner when barking.

In this instance his owner was behind him and to the left at the far end of the sofa.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9940.msg477930#msg477930


The point I was making and which you appear not to have grasped is that Eddie was giving no indication of exactly what was the source of his alert.

I have observed that when barking ~ and with reference to one or two examples of which there are more ... Eddie does so having turned to face Martin Grime and not what has caused him to bark.
For example, had his owner been standing at the opposite end of the sofa from where he did ... Eddie would have turned and faced in that direction.

You may agree or disagree with my observations ... that is your prerogative ... but please desist from decrying on topic posts as off topic when it suits you.
In my opinion that does nothing to further debate.

[G-Unit]

If the alert behind the sofa was the only alert there would be no bone of contention. In an effort to substantiate my suspicion there may have been an error with that particular alert it was necessary to introduce the nose position in other alerts made by Eddie but you appear to class that as irrelevant. Perhaps you would do me the courtesy in future of not asking for proof you have no intention of giving any consideration to.

Your opinion was that Grime made a mistake when he described/interpreted Eddie's alert behind the sofa. You thought Eddie may have alerted to a different spot than Grime said he alerted to. You then mentioned the alert to the clothing.

#25 smip

 If his alerts are only "general location" how should we view the alerts to the clothing he picked up in his mouth?

I didn't reply to that because I could see no connection between the two alerts or how the position of Eddie's nose immediately prior to them was important.

In my opinion your criticisms of the alerts rest solely on your opinions of how Eddie should behave. I  can't see why your opinions should be seen as having more value than the opinions of an experienced dog handler. Sorry. 

[Robittybob1]

This cite appears to say that cadaver dogs can scent cadaver as early as after 1 hour 25 minutes (after death). 

Below is snipped from test results. It is worth reading the rest IMO.


TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.

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

The other thing not considered is the time interval between  taking the test sample away and the time the dogs are brought in. 
In the McCann case that is 3 months and IMO the concentration of the cadaver odour would need to be higher to remain detectable after that length of time.

[Robittybob1]

Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.

It certainly isn't easy.

[Sunny]

The other thing not considered is the time interval between  taking the test sample away and the time the dogs are brought in. 
In the McCann case that is 3 months and IMO the concentration of the cadaver odour would need to be higher to remain detectable after that length of time.

These cadaver dogs found a body decades after the person died.

MEXICO, N.Y. -- A well-trained cadaver dog almost never gets it wrong, according to experts.

If the dog has the proper training in picking up the full range of scents of human decomposition, his accuracy rate is about 95 percent, said Sharon Ward, a cadaver dog trainer in Portland, Ore.

"So if a dog says it's there, there's a darn good chance it is," she said tonight. "They're pretty darn accurate."

A New York State Police cadaver dog alerted twice in the same area Monday outside a cabin in Mexico where Oswego County sheriff's investigators are looking for the remains of 1994 kidnap victim Heidi Allen, according to a lawyer for the man imprisoned on a conviction of kidnapping her.

The dog indicated it smelled a body in an area around a fresh footprint, Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles said she was told by Oswego County District Attorney Greg Oakes.

The footprint is unlikely the source of the scent the dog picked up, Ward said.

"Any properly trained dog will ignore a fresh-set print," she said.

The fact that it was a state police dog makes it more likely its owner knows very well when the dog has found a body, she said.
.
"The handler, especially a state police handler, should know if a dog lies to him or not," said Ward, a trainer with Pacific Crest Search Dogs, a nonprofit that uses the dogs to find human remains in Oregon and the state of Washington.

Depending on the type of soil, its aeration and the presence of tree roots in the ground, a cadaver dog can pick up the scent of remains deep underground, Ward said. She cited a case where police asked her if her three cadaver dogs could pick up a scent of remains 30 feet deep.

" I said, 'I have no idea. I've never trained on that, but I'll try,'" she said.

All three dogs put their noses in the same area and alerted, she said. She told the police to bring in a bulldozer, and they found a body 15 feet down, Ward said.

Cadaver dogs are trained to not alert on dead animals in the area -- only human remains, she said.

"In my yard, I have a cow bone and and elk bone out," she said. "If my dog hits on one of those, he's in trouble."

How old can the skeletal remains be? Hundreds of years, said Cat Warren, a cadaver dog expert from North Carolina who published a book, "What the Dog Knows: The Science and Wonder of Working Dogs."

But she and Ward both warned that the dogs are like people. They do make mistakes sometimes.

"The dogs are not magic," Warren said. "It depends on their training."
https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html

[Mr Gray]

These cadaver dogs found a body decades after the person died.

MEXICO, N.Y. -- A well-trained cadaver dog almost never gets it wrong, according to experts.

If the dog has the proper training in picking up the full range of scents of human decomposition, his accuracy rate is about 95 percent, said Sharon Ward, a cadaver dog trainer in Portland, Ore.

"So if a dog says it's there, there's a darn good chance it is," she said tonight. "They're pretty darn accurate."

A New York State Police cadaver dog alerted twice in the same area Monday outside a cabin in Mexico where Oswego County sheriff's investigators are looking for the remains of 1994 kidnap victim Heidi Allen, according to a lawyer for the man imprisoned on a conviction of kidnapping her.

The dog indicated it smelled a body in an area around a fresh footprint, Federal Public Defender Lisa Peebles said she was told by Oswego County District Attorney Greg Oakes.

The footprint is unlikely the source of the scent the dog picked up, Ward said.

"Any properly trained dog will ignore a fresh-set print," she said.

The fact that it was a state police dog makes it more likely its owner knows very well when the dog has found a body, she said.
.
"The handler, especially a state police handler, should know if a dog lies to him or not," said Ward, a trainer with Pacific Crest Search Dogs, a nonprofit that uses the dogs to find human remains in Oregon and the state of Washington.

Depending on the type of soil, its aeration and the presence of tree roots in the ground, a cadaver dog can pick up the scent of remains deep underground, Ward said. She cited a case where police asked her if her three cadaver dogs could pick up a scent of remains 30 feet deep.

" I said, 'I have no idea. I've never trained on that, but I'll try,'" she said.

All three dogs put their noses in the same area and alerted, she said. She told the police to bring in a bulldozer, and they found a body 15 feet down, Ward said.

Cadaver dogs are trained to not alert on dead animals in the area -- only human remains, she said.

"In my yard, I have a cow bone and and elk bone out," she said. "If my dog hits on one of those, he's in trouble."

How old can the skeletal remains be? Hundreds of years, said Cat Warren, a cadaver dog expert from North Carolina who published a book, "What the Dog Knows: The Science and Wonder of Working Dogs."

But she and Ward both warned that the dogs are like people. They do make mistakes sometimes.

"The dogs are not magic," Warren said. "It depends on their training."
https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html

weve seen taht before...but in that case there were remains...not remnant scent...we simply do not know how long remnant scent would survive in a building that was in use....and then we have an alert in a flower bed...open to all the elements...

so this article says 95 % when remains are present...but does not mention rates for remnant scent

[Sunny]

weve seen taht before...but in that case there were remains...not remnant scent...we simply do not know how long remnant scent would survive in a building that was in use....and then we have an alert in a flower bed...open to all the elements...

so this article says 95 % when remains are present...but does not mention rates for remnant scent

How about this one then Davel

A Kane County judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors in a 1990 murder case could use testimony based on the use of dogs trained to find human remains, perhaps the first time such evidence has been found admissible in a state case.

Judge Timothy Sheldon’s ruling could clear the way for dog handlers to provide corroborating evidence in the case of Aurelio Montano, a former Aurora resident and convicted double-murderer who is awaiting trial for the slaying of his wife, Guadalupe Montano.



Prosecutors want to present testimony that the so-called cadaver dogs showed signs they had detected human remains on a DuPage County farm where authorities allege Montano buried his wife after strangling her in July 1990.

Other states have approved cadaver dog testimony at trial, and Illinois courts have upheld the use of evidence obtained by drug-sniffing dogs in narcotics prosecutions. But Kane prosecutors said they could find no Illinois state case law supporting the use of dogs who detect human remains.

The judge’s ruling came after several hours of testimony from Susan Stejskal, a Michigan resident with a doctorate in toxicology who has trained cadaver dogs and written a book on the subject.

Dogs, she testified, rely on their sense of smell, which is substantially better than a person’s.

The average human may have 5 million sensory receptors for smell, compared to 300 million for a bloodhound, she said.

“We can’t smell the detail the dogs can,” Stejskal said.
That ability means dogs can be reliably trained to detect the presence of human decomposition, she said, and conversely, taught to disregard odors of decomposition from other animals.

Prosecutors say cadaver dogs alerted their handlers to the presence of human remains on a Hobson Road horse farm where Montano allegedly buried his wife’s body. Montano’s brother worked there in 1990 and reportedly told relatives that he helped his brother bury the body, according to court documents.
 
Convinced that his wife was unfaithful, Montano allegedly strangled Guadalupe. He then rolled up her body in a rug, which he placed in his pickup truck and drove to the farm, police allege.

In December 2007, Aurora police conducted a forensic dig at the farm and recovered pieces of a rug. Family members identified it as the rug from the Montano home.

Three cadaver dogs sniffed the remnant and gave positive alerts for the presence of human remains, according to court documents.

The farm dig, however, did not produce the victim’s body.

Other family members reported to police that Montano exhumed his wife’s body about four months after he allegedly killed her. Her body has never been recovered.

A nephew of Aurelio Montano’s told police that about a year after Guadalupe disappeared, he and Montano were having drinks at Montano’s home. Montano, the nephew said, brought him into the garage where he produced a plastic grocery bag that he said contained body parts of his wife.

The nephew, who said he feared Montano, said his uncle placed the bag in the trunk of the nephew’s car and they drove off.

“At some point, the defendant told (the nephew) to stop, get out and dispose of the bag,” according to court documents.


Montano was not charged with his wife’s murder until 2008.

By then, he was already serving a life sentence in prison after being convicted of participating in the 1996 drug-related murders of a Texas couple who were hanged in the basement of an Aurora house that Montano was restoring.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-04/news/chi-kane-co-judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-ok-in-murder-trial-20121004_1_cadaver-dogs-body-parts-decomposition

This one is remnant scent after years and years.

[Erngath]

What were the odds of clothing worn by different people, washed several times between May & August & presumably stored in separate rooms, all having cadaver odour contaminant which didn't affect other clothing stored nearby?

Good question Misty
Does seem strange.

[Mr Gray]

How about this one then Davel

A Kane County judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors in a 1990 murder case could use testimony based on the use of dogs trained to find human remains, perhaps the first time such evidence has been found admissible in a state case.

Judge Timothy Sheldon’s ruling could clear the way for dog handlers to provide corroborating evidence in the case of Aurelio Montano, a former Aurora resident and convicted double-murderer who is awaiting trial for the slaying of his wife, Guadalupe Montano.



Prosecutors want to present testimony that the so-called cadaver dogs showed signs they had detected human remains on a DuPage County farm where authorities allege Montano buried his wife after strangling her in July 1990.

Other states have approved cadaver dog testimony at trial, and Illinois courts have upheld the use of evidence obtained by drug-sniffing dogs in narcotics prosecutions. But Kane prosecutors said they could find no Illinois state case law supporting the use of dogs who detect human remains.

The judge’s ruling came after several hours of testimony from Susan Stejskal, a Michigan resident with a doctorate in toxicology who has trained cadaver dogs and written a book on the subject.

Dogs, she testified, rely on their sense of smell, which is substantially better than a person’s.

The average human may have 5 million sensory receptors for smell, compared to 300 million for a bloodhound, she said.

“We can’t smell the detail the dogs can,” Stejskal said.
That ability means dogs can be reliably trained to detect the presence of human decomposition, she said, and conversely, taught to disregard odors of decomposition from other animals.

Prosecutors say cadaver dogs alerted their handlers to the presence of human remains on a Hobson Road horse farm where Montano allegedly buried his wife’s body. Montano’s brother worked there in 1990 and reportedly told relatives that he helped his brother bury the body, according to court documents.
 
Convinced that his wife was unfaithful, Montano allegedly strangled Guadalupe. He then rolled up her body in a rug, which he placed in his pickup truck and drove to the farm, police allege.

In December 2007, Aurora police conducted a forensic dig at the farm and recovered pieces of a rug. Family members identified it as the rug from the Montano home.

Three cadaver dogs sniffed the remnant and gave positive alerts for the presence of human remains, according to court documents.

The farm dig, however, did not produce the victim’s body.

Other family members reported to police that Montano exhumed his wife’s body about four months after he allegedly killed her. Her body has never been recovered.

A nephew of Aurelio Montano’s told police that about a year after Guadalupe disappeared, he and Montano were having drinks at Montano’s home. Montano, the nephew said, brought him into the garage where he produced a plastic grocery bag that he said contained body parts of his wife.

The nephew, who said he feared Montano, said his uncle placed the bag in the trunk of the nephew’s car and they drove off.

“At some point, the defendant told (the nephew) to stop, get out and dispose of the bag,” according to court documents.


Montano was not charged with his wife’s murder until 2008.

By then, he was already serving a life sentence in prison after being convicted of participating in the 1996 drug-related murders of a Texas couple who were hanged in the basement of an Aurora house that Montano was restoring.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-04/news/chi-kane-co-judge-evidence-from-cadaver-dogs-ok-in-murder-trial-20121004_1_cadaver-dogs-body-parts-decomposition

This one is remnant scent after years and years.

a rug that is buried with the body would also contaminate the soil around it....cadaverine would be entombed underground with nowhere to escape...trapped...unlike an open apartment. The rug would also be heavily contaminated over many months  in contact with a cadaver...quite different