Author Topic: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?  (Read 39654 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sunny

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #360 on: August 12, 2018, 01:30:40 PM »
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


Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #361 on: August 12, 2018, 01:35:01 PM »
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
SOunds like a bit of a one off, but nonetheless point taken - the consensus suggests 2.5-3 hours, and I wonder were these tests conducted within hours of the samples taken of the deceased or three months after the samples had been taken?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline jassi

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #362 on: August 12, 2018, 01:41:44 PM »
90 minutes, 2 & a half hours, still far too long for an abductor.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #363 on: August 12, 2018, 01:53:46 PM »
90 minutes, 2 & a half hours, still far too long for an abductor.
And still quite tricky to explain a plausible scenario of parental involvement.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline jassi

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #364 on: August 12, 2018, 01:56:16 PM »
Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #365 on: August 12, 2018, 02:02:07 PM »
Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.
Personally I don't think the dog alerts have any bearing on the British investigation but might explain why the Portuguese one went off track to arrive at precisely nothing after a year or so.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline jassi

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #366 on: August 12, 2018, 02:09:22 PM »
Whereas, several years on, OG hasn't come up with anything either.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #367 on: August 12, 2018, 02:10:37 PM »
Whereas, several years on, OG hasn't come up with anything either.
How do you know what they have or haven't come up with?  Do they brief you regularly?
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #368 on: August 12, 2018, 02:18:09 PM »
How do you know what they have or haven't come up with?  Do they brief you regularly?

I thought it had been established  beyond doubt that police forces keep things secret

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #369 on: August 12, 2018, 02:28:55 PM »
Rather than attack the poster and their motives why not actually address the rather valid points she has made regarding the alert to the clothes?

They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.

There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Venturi Swirl

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #370 on: August 12, 2018, 02:38:30 PM »
They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.

There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.
The questions were perfectly on topic IMO as they related to the dog's alerts of the clothing and how it was decided what the dog was actually alerting to.
"Surely the fact that their accounts were different reinforces their veracity rather than diminishes it? If they had colluded in protecting ........ surely all of their accounts would be the same?" - Faithlilly

Offline Brietta

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #371 on: August 12, 2018, 02:39:24 PM »
They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.

There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.

In my opinion you are wrong with reference to the opening post ... "The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts."

Not only did the dog use it's nose in the gymnasium ... it used it's mouth to fling the evidence around.  So might well be in accord with the theme of the thread but your not wishing to discuss that aspect of the dog's behaviour ( which basically is what this thread is about) doesn't automatically rule it OT.
The editors will decide that.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Brietta

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #372 on: August 12, 2018, 02:40:19 PM »
The questions were perfectly on topic IMO as they related to the dog's alerts of the clothing and how it was decided what the dog was actually alerting to.

You beat me to it ... but agreed.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #373 on: August 12, 2018, 03:11:40 PM »
In my opinion you are wrong with reference to the opening post ... "The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts."

Not only did the dog use it's nose in the gymnasium ... it used it's mouth to fling the evidence around.  So might well be in accord with the theme of the thread but your not wishing to discuss that aspect of the dog's behaviour ( which basically is what this thread is about) doesn't automatically rule it OT.
The editors will decide that.

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.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?
« Reply #374 on: August 12, 2018, 03:18:52 PM »
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.

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