UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Jean-Pierre on August 27, 2013, 01:03:51 PM
-
Interesting POV
Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.
"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work
-
I hope Jean-Pierre doesn't mind but I believe this topic is worthy of its own thread.
-
I notice that the article is from March 2011 but it just goes to show that the science of cadaver dog investigative work was already in an almighty mess so who knows what the truth was in 2007. My own view has always been that there are far too many external influences for cadaver dog alerts to ever be taken as anything more than a general indication that there might be something worth further investigation. Mr Grime has always rightly stated that the dog alerts on their own prove nothing.
-
http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/201103UOPDogsMoG1.1.pdf
pp. 111-155
-
Very interesting Ann. And also instructive that Martin Grime allowed his APCO licences to lapse at around the time of the Jersey gig (with due reference that this IS from the daily wail).
snipped: "Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell." snipped
Snipped: "Yet Grime, who had left South Yorkshire police in July 2007 and was selling his dogs' services through his private business, had failed to keep up the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) licence that certified Eddie as a police 'cadaver dog'.
Grime did have a second sniffer dog, Keela, but its licence expired a fortnight after they arrived in Jersey.
ACPO rules governing UK police dogs state: 'Dog and handler teams that fail to remain in-licence are deemed "not competent".'
Grime admitted to The Mail on Sunday that the dog's licence had lapsed. He said: 'After I retired, my dogs were tested according to my own standards which are more stringent than ACPO's. But Jersey is not in the UK, so they were in their rights to employ whoever they wanted.' He said his fees were 'all agreed' and that he had given Jersey a 'discount'.
Asked about the 'human remains' found by Eddie that turned out to be coconut, Grime said bizarrely: 'People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.'" snipped
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html
-
Very good posts Anne and Jean Pierre. 8@??)(
-
I notice that the article is from March 2011 but it just goes to show that the science of cadaver dog investigative work was already in an almighty mess so who knows what the truth was in 2007. My own view has always been that there are far too many external influences for cadaver dog alerts to ever be taken as anything more than a general indication that there might be something worth further investigation. Mr Grime has always rightly stated that the dog alerts on their own prove nothing.
Agreed. My sentiments entirely.
-
Even a dog can have a bad day? 8(8-))
-
Even a dog can have a bad day? 8(8-))
They also say every dog has his day! @)(++(*
-
Interesting POV
Sniffer Dogs can hinder police work.
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.
"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
http://news.sky.com/story/844071/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work
Very convenient for the McCann, but I doubt that terrorist, drug and/or people's traffickers' police will be pleased with that crap of an article.
-
I have to agree about the dog tests Luz. They were a sham from beginning to end and to think someone even got paid tens of thousands of pounds for it. I hope Eddie and Keela got a bone each for their efforts.
-
I notice that the article is from March 2011 but it just goes to show that the science of cadaver dog investigative work was already in an almighty mess so who knows what the truth was in 2007. My own view has always been that there are far too many external influences for cadaver dog alerts to ever be taken as anything more than a general indication that there might be something worth further investigation. Mr Grime has always rightly stated that the dog alerts on their own prove nothing.
I agree with you on that.
The problem, I find, is that the dogs have become a major bone of contention. They are either deemed useless or are always deemed to have found the prior presence of a real dead body.
I can't agree with either.
Dogs can be a great asset to narrow down a search area. Their alerts may be correct (from the dog's perspective), but it is then up to the police to eliminate potential other irrelevant reasons for an alert.
Informally asking if anyone was aware of a previous death doesn't make the grade for me in terms of rigorously excluding other possibilities.
Swindells says: "The best thing about using a dog to detect cadavers, as opposed to machines, is that dogs have the ability to think. But that's also the worst thing about using dogs." This means that cadaver dogs appear to have sufficient intelligence to recognise a corpse across a range of environmental conditions. However, they can also be distracted, for example by methane produced naturally in a peat bog (corpses also produce methane).
One indisputable advantage dogs have over machines is that they can quickly narrow down a search when a large area has to be covered. Adee Schoon of Leiden University, a scientific adviser to the canine department of the Netherlands National Police Agency, sums up the attitude of many who work with human cadaver dogs: "We use dogs as intelligent samplers, to tell us where to look further."
So, although death dogs may not always get it right, their discoveries can make the difference between solving a crime and leaving dark secrets buried for ever.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-csi-death-dogs-sniffing-out-the-truth-behind-the-crimescene-canines-835047.html
-
I have to agree about the dog tests Luz. They were a sham from beginning to end and to think someone even got paid tens of thousands of pounds for it. I hope Eddie and Keela got a bone each for their efforts.
Angelo, you'll perhaps change your mind about scents and the canine olfactory system, reading a study (PhD) on the utility on training aids of STU 100 (scent transfer unit), a device the PJ asked the US to lend them but didn't or couldn't arrive on time (?).
You can read from p. 100 (pdf) or 83 (real page number) on.
On p. 111 (94) there's a table with the main chemical compounds that form humain remains scent.
You will see also how complex training efficiently a dog is and, I suppose, admit that Prof Harrison had some scientific reason to recommend the British dogs who came to PDL and to send them first thing to the 5A. You'll see that any suggestion about dogs being trained with pork meat you can buy around the corner and let decay is ridiculous.
There are besides very interesting remarks on putrescine and cadaverine.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
-
Sent by Carana :
dogs have the ability to think
That's surely breaking news !
-
Angelo, you'll perhaps change your mind about scents and the canine olfactory system, reading a study (PhD) on the utility on training aids of STU 100 (scent transfer unit), a device the PJ asked the US to lend them but didn't or couldn't arrive on time (?).
You can read from p. 100 (pdf) or 83 (real page number) on.
On p. 111 (94) there's a table with the main chemical compounds that form humain remains scent.
You will see also how complex training efficiently a dog is and, I suppose, admit that Prof Harrison had some scientific reason to recommend the British dogs who came to PDL and to send them first thing to the 5A. You'll see that any suggestion about dogs being trained with pork meat you can buy around the corner and let decay is ridiculous.
There are besides very interesting remarks on putrescine and cadaverine.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
Was the STU-100 machine used in PdL?
-
Ah! The STU100.
Does anyone know what it's actually used for?
-
Ah! The STU100.
Does anyone know what it's actually used for?
http://stu100.com/about.php
I think it is the same thing Grime mentions.
I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a ST100 Scent Transference Unit. The unit is designed in a two-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the ST100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through
ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.
The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S 100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.
Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.
Operational use of the ST100 is in a developmental stage.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html
-
http://stu100.com/about.php
I think it is the same thing Grime mentions.
I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a ST100 Scent Transference Unit. The unit is designed in a two-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the ST100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through
ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for use within scent discrimination exercises.
The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the S 100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed.
Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.
Operational use of the ST100 is in a developmental stage.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html
Here is what an STU100 is:
The Scent Transfer Unit was specifically designed for forensic specialists, investigators, evidence recovery teams, identification departments and scent dog handlers. The Scent Transfer Unit allows law enforcement to collect evidence from any item without destroying fingerprints on the item, collect trace evidence at a crime scene without contamination, collect scent evidence from hard to access places not accessible to a search dog and gives law enforcement a scent pad to store in scent banks for future use on repeat offenders.
The STU-100 was designed and built to assist law enforcement with the collection of scent evidence. It provides a method of preserving evidence for extended periods of time. Properly handled and operated, the STU-100 can produce unbelievable results. Using scent discriminating canines, scent evidence can give you - Direction of travel from a crime scene - Direction to evidence left behind or hidden evidence - Direction to a concealed subject - The capability to establish probable cause - Provide positive identification. Proven effective by extensive testing by the FBI and others, it has been demonstrated to reliably pick up bomb/explosive handlers scent evidence on bomb fragments from several types of detonations to assist in locating and identifying those that handled the detonators and other parts of the explosive devices.
The STU-100 is very user friendly and comes with a 10 minute training DVD. The unit comes in its own custom fitted case and only weighs 14 pounds. The STU-100 is very durable and compact for fieldwork and has its own charging system and 12v battery which operates the unit, or it can be plugged into any 12v system (vehicle, plane, boat etc.). Comes complete with sterile scent recovery pads and alcohol wipes.
Just the sort of equipment the handler of a cadaver dog would need ...
http://www.crimesciences.com/StoreBox/otherevidencecollectkits/stu-100.htm
-
I'm surprised nobody seems to be interested in reading the scientific study on death scent and dogs.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
-
I'm surprised nobody seems to be interested in reading the scientific study on death scent and dogs.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
I have tried, Anne, but nothing comes up on my computer .... just a blank screen.
-
Ditto. The link doesn't work, Anne.
-
That's strange. I'm sorry, I tried it right now and it worked !
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
Try with the title :
Development of a Dynamic Headspace Concentration Technique for the Non-Contact Sampling of Human Odor Samples and the Creation of Canine Training Aids
Lauryn E. DeGreeff, Florida International University
-
That's strange. I'm sorry, I tried it right now and it worked !
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
Try with the title :
Development of a Dynamic Headspace Concentration Technique for the Non-Contact Sampling of Human Odor Samples and the Creation of Canine Training Aids
Lauryn E. DeGreeff, Florida International University
Sorry but atm I have loads to do. Life has to go on ... and I spend far too much time here
Maybe later.
sadie x
-
That's strange. I'm sorry, I tried it right now and it worked !
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
Try with the title :
Development of a Dynamic Headspace Concentration Technique for the Non-Contact Sampling of Human Odor Samples and the Creation of Canine Training Aids
Lauryn E. DeGreeff, Florida International University
First thing to note is that is dated November 2010, some 3 and a half to four years after Madeleine's abduction.
It says this on page 104:
The current research will utilize the STU-100 to provide more information about
the signature compounds from the decomposition of human bodies, which could lead to
the formulation of a more effective pseudo scent or the use of the STU-100 as an
investigative tool or as a tool for canine handlers. Scent transfer units are already
possessed by local police departments and federal agencies. The application of such a
collection device could potentially be used to confirm the alert of an HRD canine when
the body is no longer present, or could be used to create odor pads for canines in the same
manner as is already done for the human scent canines.
It doesn't appear to explain how the device could be used in that manner, and it doesn't appear as if, at that juncture, (some 4 years after Madeleine's abduction) the manufacturers of STU100s had quite worked out, themselves, how the unit could thus be used.
I think Amaral got hold of the wrong end of some half-understood conversation and said in his book that this device would confirm Madeleine was dead.
-
It has been said before. But perhaps worth saying again. Having read his book, how on earth did this man get to become a policeman? His logical reasoning seems to be based either on flawed thinking or on prejudice.
-
I'm surprised nobody seems to be interested in reading the scientific study on death scent and dogs.
http://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1382&context=etd
Thank you for that link I found this paragraph interesting
Chemical pseudo scents may be used as training aids as an alternative to actual
human remains. Putrescine and cadaverine are particularly odorous compounds formed
during the decomposition process and are commonly found in pseudo scent mixtures.
While these compounds may be easier to obtain, they are hazardous chemicals that must
be handled with care. Cadaverine and putrescine are known to be found in all decaying
organic matter93 and have also been found in human saliva.94 Also, these mixtures likely
do not completely represent the entire odor picture of human remains as there have been
no scientific studies showing which odor or combinations of odors are of interest to HRD
canines.
-
From the item number 94
http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/time-profile-of-putrescine-cadaverine-indole-and-skatole-in-human-g4MEvu8fwp
Bacterial putrefaction of saliva in the oral cavity consists of essentially two processes. The first is the
breakdown of proteins and peptides, the second is the degradation of the resulting amino acids (e.g.
L-arginine, L-ornithine, L-lysine and cysteine) by enzymes, into volatile compounds such as hydrogen
sulphide, methyl mercaptan, indole, skatole, putrescine and cadaverine.
-
Cadaverine and putrescine are known to be found in all decaying
organic matter and have also been found in human saliva. Also, these mixtures likely
do not completely represent the entire odor picture of human remains as there have been
no scientific studies showing which odor or combinations of odors are of interest to HRD
canines.
This is likely why the HRD dog wasn't trained with synthetic compound of cadaverine and putrescine and didn't react to it.
If one is patient enough and reads further, it says that both particular scents aren't present in early decaying stage (which in fact confirms human noses).
-
Cadaverine and putrescine are known to be found in all decaying
organic matter and have also been found in human saliva. Also, these mixtures likely
do not completely represent the entire odor picture of human remains as there have been
no scientific studies showing which odor or combinations of odors are of interest to HRD
canines.
This is likely why the HRD dog wasn't trained with synthetic compound of cadaverine and putrescine and didn't react to it.
If one is patient enough and reads further, it says that both particular scents aren't present in early decaying stage (which in fact confirms human noses).
I'll assume that you have never been stuck in a confined space with someone with halitosis. ;)
Seriously, it would have been so much clearer if, instead of "cadaver" odour, something along the lines of human decomposition scent had been used in the first place.
-
I know what (rather recent) death smells. It's like riding a bike, once you've learnt you never forget. It has nothing comparable, fortunately (since you can't but associate it with death), with halitosis, except that both are repelling.
You should read that study, Carana, and see how aids for training the dogs are carefully tested.
-
Unfortunately though Anne if you can smell it then a dog will definitely smell it, ANY DOG, the problem being what is a cadaver dog smelling when there is no body?
How long before a dog can smell cadaver odour?
-
Cadaverine and putrescine are known to be found in all decaying
organic matter and have also been found in human saliva. Also, these mixtures likely
do not completely represent the entire odor picture of human remains as there have been
no scientific studies showing which odor or combinations of odors are of interest to HRD
canines.
This is likely why the HRD dog wasn't trained with synthetic compound of cadaverine and putrescine and didn't react to it.
If one is patient enough and reads further, it says that both particular scents aren't present in early decaying stage (which in fact confirms human noses).
That paragraph speaks of Pseudo scents which can be used to train dogs, but the part I enlarged states cadaverine and putrescine are known to be found in all decaying organic matter and have also been found in human saliva.
It does not state Pseudo cadaverine and putrescine scents....... blah blah blah
So twisting words again and taking them out of context to suit agenda springs to mind here.
-
Et patati et patata.
-
Unfortunately though Anne if you can smell it then a dog will definitely smell it, ANY DOG, the problem being what is a cadaver dog smelling when there is no body?
How long before a dog can smell cadaver odour?
It takes many hours before a body smells death enough for a human nose to detect. But I never smelt it in sanitary towels, bandages, sperm, baby bibs, etc., all sorts of things that have a scent, but not the scent of death (fortunately).
-
Et patati et patata.
Just a shame you can't accept that I am correct and you are wrong without having to resort to such petty postings.
-
I was just answering your blahblahblah !
I see you've no intellectual interest for this study ! A pity.
-
It takes many hours before a body smells death enough for a human nose to detect. But I never smelt it in sanitary towels, bandages, sperm, baby bibs, etc., all sorts of things that have a scent, but not the scent of death (fortunately).
The way I would look at it though Anne, and I really know nothing about cadaver dogs, but what they smell has to be a mixture of things decomposing in the body. So, if a cadaver dog can smell dried blood for example and alert to it, then surely it would be in the smell of a sanitary towel?
-
The way I would look at it though Anne, and I really know nothing about cadaver dogs, but what they smell has to be a mixture of things decomposing in the body. So, if a cadaver dog can smell dried blood for example and alert to it, then surely it would be in the smell of a sanitary towel?
Interesting question, but my experience is that sanitary towels don't smell death (old ones ?). That blood, as you know, isn't exactly like the blood that flows from a wound. Would a HRD dog alert to it though the training was with "fresh" blood ?
In recent post-mortem, the HRD dog smells a subtle scent that we don't detect. How long that scent remains depends on various factors, some experiences have been made, yet not enough.
-
Eddie alerted to the flowerbed...it was outside....the scent doesn't last that long
The whole evidence would be thrown out...if it was ever presented..
-
Eddie alerted to the flowerbed...it was outside....the scent doesn't last that long
The whole evidence would be thrown out...if it was ever presented..
How long does the 'scent' last for exactly ?
-
How long does the 'scent' last for exactly ?
That's the whole point Stephen but you won't like it
There are hundreds of thousands of scientific articles re DNA and fingerprints...but the experts still argue
From the little information in a totally confined space the scent could last one year
Out in the open...who knows
Of course if a body part was still there it's different
-
That's the whole point Stephen but you won't like it
There are hundreds of thousands of scientific articles re DNA and fingerprints...but the experts still argue
From the little information in a totally confined space the scent could last one year
Out in the open...who knows
Of course if a body part was still there it's different
I am quite aware that there are many variables in play, in terms of how long after contamination and the degree of contamination. a scent or scents can be detected. Also, you have to include which type of dogs are used, i.e. some are better for this than others in detection.
However, to say, 'the scent doesn't last that long' is far too vague and meaningless.
-
The whole point is that there is no evidence to back up the dogs abilities
Grime has already stated that the dogs alert cannot be relied on without forensics
Isn't that plain enough
-
Interesting question, but my experience is that sanitary towels don't smell death (old ones ?). That blood, as you know, isn't exactly like the blood that flows from a wound. Would a HRD dog alert to it though the training was with "fresh" blood ?
In recent post-mortem, the HRD dog smells a subtle scent that we don't detect. How long that scent remains depends on various factors, some experiences have been made, yet not enough.
The reason I mentioned that Anne is I remember reading an article where a cadaver dog was searching for a dead body and alerted to inside a shed. After investigation though they found that the dog was alerting to an old sanitary towel.
I will try and find the article for you to read.
-
I am quite aware that there are many variables in play, in terms of how long after contamination and the degree of contamination. a scent or scents can be detected. Also, you have to include which type of dogs are used, i.e. some are better for this than others in detection.
However, to say, 'the scent doesn't last that long' is far too vague and meaningless.
The prosecution has to prove the case...the mccanns don't have to prove anything which may come as a shock to the Portuguese.....vague and meaningless...exactly the right words to describe the dogs alerts
-
"Intelligence", this is how Prof Harrison qualified the dogs' alerts that no forensic corroborated.
Not "vague", nor "meaningless", nor "unreliable".
-
Sorry I cannot find that article I was talking about at the moment Anne but this is a section from another article -
Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.
-
"Intelligence", this is how Prof Harrison qualified the dogs' alerts that no forensic corroborated.
Not "vague", nor "meaningless", nor "unreliable".
No evidential value is how grime described the alerts....that's pretty strong language..bit hard for you to accept
-
Not at all, why should I reject that ?
I objected to your "vague", "meaningless", "unreliable", etc. that aren't in Mr Grime's nor in Prof Harrison's reports.
-
Not at all, why should I reject that ?
I objected to your "vague", "meaningless", "unreliable", etc. that aren't in Mr Grime's nor in Prof Harrison's reports.
They were in Stephens post and in my opinion accurately some up the dogs responses
-
They were in Stephens post and in my opinion accurately some up the dogs responses
I didn't say 'unreliable', and the words 'vague and meaningless' are in response to you saying the scent(s) don't last long.
However, the forensics were inconclusive.
So it didn't rule out a body was or was not detected.
-
The whole point is that there is no evidence to back up the dogs abilities
Grime has already stated that the dogs alert cannot be relied on without forensics
Isn't that plain enough
Both Grime and Harrison have stated this caveat... What's so difficult to understand?
-
No, Carana, neither Mr Grime nor Prof Harrison said the alerts "could not be relied on without forensics", they said they couldn't be evidence and Prof Harrison said they only could be intelligence.
About the lack of forensic corroboration, nobody doubts there was none and nobody ever did.
-
No, Carana, neither Mr Grime nor Prof Harrison said the alerts "could not be relied on without forensics", they said they couldn't be evidence and Prof Harrison said they only could be intelligence.
About the lack of forensic corroboration, nobody doubts there was none and nobody ever did.
Anne, I seriously doubt that what you have said is what you intended to say.
-
Nobody will doubt there's an excess of negation. How could I affirm the contrary of what everybody knows ?
-
No, Carana, neither Mr Grime nor Prof Harrison said the alerts "could not be relied on without forensics", they said they couldn't be evidence and Prof Harrison said they only could be intelligence.
About the lack of forensic corroboration, nobody doubts there was none and nobody ever did.
« Last Edit: Today at 07:20:20 PM by AnneGuedes »
- If Grime and Harrison had affirmed that the alerts could be valid without forensic evidence, surely this would have appeared in the files?
-If no one doubts the presence of forensic evidence, where is it it in the files?
ETA:Sorry, two mistakes to correct.
-
What a confusion !
Nobody claimed alerts could be evidence without forensic corroboration.
It is stated like this in Prof Harrison's report, so that's by default and doesn't have to be stated in the files.