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: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 01:24:43 AM
Title: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 01:24:43 AM
I think Eddie marked that t-shirt worn on 4 May IMO. That is evidence that needs to be corroborated. You don't get top dogs who are the best alerting so many times without it being followed up by the police. SY are searching for evidence of a body because of the dogs and new forensics must be coming soon.
Yes I think Eddie marked that t-shirt worn on 4 May IMO. That is evidence that needs to be corroborated. You don't get top dogs who are the best alerting so many times without it being followed up by the police. SY are searching for evidence of a body because of the dogs and new forensics must be coming soon.
Eddie also trampled over half a dozen items, barking, and picked up something blue in his mouth (Sean's shorts?). A properly trained FBI VRD would have been able to indicate EXACTLY where the scent was - thus enabling its handler not to make the errors you now claim Grime has made.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 10:00:21 AM
Are all the dogs 'unreliable' or just Grimes' dogs? Lots of them being taken to Nepal.
you really do not understand the dogs alerts...the alerts do not confirm the previous location of a cadaver...grime made this clear
Do I not? How patronising! The one alert that I find difficult to ignore is the one in the main bedroom of G5A. The CSI dog didn't alert there, so not blood. The alert is not proof of anything because no body was found in the apartment, but that alert meant that the dog found a scent he was trained to find. When he found it he was trained to bark. What was he alerting to therefore? If the dogs in Nepal alert people will dig. If nothing is found does that mean the dog is wrong? It could mean that the scent is reaching the dog from another direction. These dogs can't always be proved right, but neither can they be proved wrong in my opinion.
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant
Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 02, 2015, 11:09:21 AM
That is the point you see. Victim Recovery Dogs, as known as Search and Rescue Dogs. This is what Eddie was originally trained to do. Find and recover live people.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 11:24:27 AM
That is the point you see. Victim Recovery Dogs, as known as Search and Rescue Dogs. This is what Eddie was originally trained to do. Find and recover live people.
So there was a live person hidden in the bedroom?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 11:25:00 AM
At G-unit:
Your quotes are partial and distort what was actually written:
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces. The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.
Each of your abbreviated quotes materially change the meaning of the quote when seen in context.
I hope this was entirely accidental!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 02, 2015, 11:29:09 AM
The dogs in the earthquake zone are alerting to living people but unfortunately in more instances are alerting to dead ones. No-one is having to interpret or make a judgement about what occasions the alert, digging into the rubble confirms it one way or the other.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: John on May 02, 2015, 12:34:04 PM
These posts have been taken from the strange statements thread as they were off topic.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 12:40:40 PM
Injured live people bleed. Eddie was originally trained to scent Blood.
EVRD OPERATIONAL CASEWORK EXAMPLES
Northern Ireland, UK A missing person, last seen returning from church, on foot, in N. Ireland. The search of suspects 'burnt out vehicle' byforensic scientists did not reveal any evidence. A search by the E.V.R.D. identified a position in the rear passenger foot well where the dog alerted to the presence of human material. A sample was taken and when analysed revealed the victims' DNA. The enquiry then concentrated its efforts on the suspect and the E.V.R.D. located the body of the woman in a river bank deposition site. Further searches identified a Vol. IX p. 2482
location where the E.V.R.D. alerted in the front bedroom of the offenders empty next door dwelling house. When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had lain in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 02, 2015, 01:04:10 PM
I have done so elsewhere on this site. I am not able to access my desktop currently where the URL is easily a available. I suggest you look through the main thread on the judgement sometime yesterday.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 02, 2015, 01:10:59 PM
I have done so elsewhere on this site. I am not able to access my desktop currently where the URL is easily a available. I suggest you look through the main thread on the judgement sometime yesterday.
Thank you.
I will later after I finish work.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 01:12:09 PM
Judgement here:
http://www.eliphashardi.eu/
You seem to have been very vocal on the subject for someone who has neglected to read the Judgement.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lyall on May 02, 2015, 01:14:31 PM
Do I not? How patronising! The one alert that I find difficult to ignore is the one in the main bedroom of G5A. The CSI dog didn't alert there, so not blood. The alert is not proof of anything because no body was found in the apartment, but that alert meant that the dog found a scent he was trained to find. When he found it he was trained to bark. What was he alerting to therefore? If the dogs in Nepal alert people will dig. If nothing is found does that mean the dog is wrong? It could mean that the scent is reaching the dog from another direction. These dogs can't always be proved right, but neither can they be proved wrong in my opinion.
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant
Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
no one knows wahta the dogs alerted to...eddie first didn't react to cuddle cat..then he did..so on one occasion he was wrong
Grime said the alert was suggestive of cadaverine...that means cadaverine may be present..so may or may not...he doesn't tell us how suggestive the alert is so we do not know
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 01:27:46 PM
no one knows wahta the dogs alerted to...eddie first didn't react to cuddle cat..then he did..so on one occasion he was wrong
Grime said the alert was suggestive of cadaverine...that means cadaverine may be present..so may or may not...he doesn't tell us how suggestive the alert is so we do not know
Harron's murderer confessed otherwise you would be saying the same thing. Forensics found nothing to confirm a body was there. Eddie found her body by following cadaver scent. What he was specially trained to find!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 01:32:55 PM
no one knows wahta the dogs alerted to...eddie first didn't react to cuddle cat..then he did..so on one occasion he was wrong
Grime said the alert was suggestive of cadaverine...that means cadaverine may be present..so may or may not...he doesn't tell us how suggestive the alert is so we do not know
What Grimes is adamant about is what the dogs do and don't do.
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. 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.
Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion' The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.
So Eddie only alerts when the scent he is trained to find is there. He alerted in the main bedroom of G5A. Can anyone tell me what he was alerting to?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 02, 2015, 01:37:40 PM
What Grimes is adamant about is what the dogs do and don't do.
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. 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.
Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion' The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.
So Eddie only alerts when the scent he is trained to find is there. He alerted in the main bedroom of G5A. Can anyone tell me what he was alerting to?
... And there is the main point behind discussion of the case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 01:40:00 PM
... And there is the main point behind discussion of the case.
Yes it is. They are trained daily and have regular testing. If they fail they're out. These dogs got top marks at FBI body farm and their record and reputation speaks for itself. The yard are only searching for evidence of a body in PDL for one reason in this case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lyall on May 02, 2015, 01:49:39 PM
Yes it is. They are trained daily and have regular testing. If they fail they're out. These dogs got top marks at FBI body farm and their record and reputation speaks for itself. The yard are only searching for evidence of a body in PDL for one reason in this case.
I do not recognise that to be the case.
Dogs are certain to have false positives and false negatives.
Of course if they lose their 'knack' then they need to be retired.
But no one expects dogs to be 100%.
I would be interested to see your cite for Eddie and Keel getting top marks at the body farm.
Eddie and Keela's record is largely unknown except from non- independent sources.
Certainly they alerted repeatedly when no forensic evidence was present even in this case and bad done so regularly. These unknowns create an uncertainty about false positives.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 01:58:47 PM
Another point about the dogs and Martin Grime. As he never met or spoke to Gerald McCann how did Gerald McCann know who Grime was and who he worked for, and why did he contact him?
At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case'' I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 02:00:54 PM
Another point about the dogs and Martin Grime. As he never met or spoke to Gerald McCann how did Gerald McCann know who Grime was and who he worked for, and why did he contact him?
At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case'' I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
What relevance does that have?
Perhaps he used the internet to identify him.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 02:07:33 PM
From the list of "Proven facts" 6. Os cães da polícia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marcas de odores de sangue humano e de cadáver no apartamento 5-A do Ocean Club [alínea AR) dos factos assentes]. 7. Os cães da polícia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marcas de odores
de sangue humano e de cadáver num veículo automóvel alugado pelos autores Kate MacCann e Gerald MacCann após o desaparecimento de Madeleine [alínea AS) dos factos assentes]. 8. Os autores Kate MacCann e Gerald MacCann foram constituídos arguidos no inquérito criminal [alínea F) dos factos assentes].
Indeed, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least one document in the files stating that this is what the dogs reacted to.
She is simply acknowledging that such a (cherry-picked) document does indeed exist.
However, the fact that such a document exists doesn't actually mean much as what Grime and Harrison actually said was that the alerts had no evidential value in the absence of corrorborating forensic results.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lyall on May 02, 2015, 02:35:58 PM
From the list of "Proven facts" 6. Os cães da polícia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marcas de odores de sangue humano e de cadáver no apartamento 5-A do Ocean Club [alínea AR) dos factos assentes]. 7. Os cães da polícia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marcas de odores
de sangue humano e de cadáver num veículo automóvel alugado pelos autores Kate MacCann e Gerald MacCann após o desaparecimento de Madeleine [alínea AS) dos factos assentes]. 8. Os autores Kate MacCann e Gerald MacCann foram constituídos arguidos no inquérito criminal [alínea F) dos factos assentes].
Indeed, if you look hard enough, you'll find at least one document in the files stating that this is what the dogs reacted to.
She is simply acknowledging that such a (cherry-picked) document does indeed exist.
However, the fact that such a document exists doesn't actually mean much as what Grime and Harrison actually said was that the alerts had no evidential value in the absence of corrorborating forensic results.
We know that Carana.
But the significance of the alerts - to us, and to the police in 2007, if not to a court - is that they did not alert (falsely or otherwise) anywhere else.
Any police, anywhere in the world, would have taken them seriously.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 02:40:19 PM
But the significance of the alerts - to us, and to the police in 2007, if not to a court - is that they did not alert (falsely or otherwise) anywhere else.
Any police, anywhere in the world, would have taken them seriously.
All dog alerts need to be taken seriously.
All dog alerts (or non alerts) provide no evidence, merely intelligence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 02:47:24 PM
Dogs are certain to have false positives and false negatives.
Of course if they lose their 'knack' then they need to be retired.
But no one expects dogs to be 100%.
I would be interested to see your cite for Eddie and Keel getting top marks at the body farm.
Eddie and Keela's record is largely unknown except from non- independent sources.
Certainly they alerted repeatedly when no forensic evidence was present even in this case and bad done so regularly. These unknowns create an uncertainty about false positives.
I thought the dogs did quite well.
Eddie alerted to the main bedroom, to the area behind the sofa in the living room, to the garden under the window, to the door of the hire car, to various items of clothing and to the toy 'cuddle cat'.
Keela alerted to the area behind the sofa in the living room and to the key and boot of the hire car.
In the areas where Keela alerted DNA evidence was found.
Nothing was found to support those alerts by Eddie which were not supported by Keela, but that is hardly surprising if he was alerting to cadaver scent.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lyall on May 02, 2015, 02:47:56 PM
Dogs are certain to have false positives and false negatives.
Of course if they lose their 'knack' then they need to be retired.
But no one expects dogs to be 100%.
I would be interested to see your cite for Eddie and Keel getting top marks at the body farm.
Eddie and Keela's record is largely unknown except from non- independent sources.
Certainly they alerted repeatedly when no forensic evidence was present even in this case and bad done so regularly. These unknowns create an uncertainty about false positives.
Have you got any proof of false alerts? According to Grime Eddie has none and the dogs passing with flying colours at FBI body farm comes from somebody close to Grime. The FBI used these dogs. The FBI wanted these dogs because they were outstanding at their job.
Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
Attracta dog helps FBI to track killer Published: August 22, 2006
The sniffer dog that helped detectives jail evil killer Trevor Hamilton has just returned from assisting the FBI with a murder probe in America. Six-year-old English springer spaniel Eddie’s career took off internationally shortly after he returned to Ulster for a third time to help in the hunt for missing Arlene Arkinson. Eddie helped police nail Hamilton after the victim-recovery dog found blood from Attracta Harron (63) on a mat from Hamilton’s burnt-out Hyundai car. He burned it the day that he murdered the retired librarian. Eddie found her body in a shallow grave in April 2003. Martin Grime, Eddie’s handler at the Dog Unit attached to South Yorkshire Police Station, today told how he has returned to Tyrone to search for Arlene (15). She went missing after leaving a disco in Bundoran, Co Donegal, on August 13 1994. Police have recently been concentrating their search in her native Castlederg in Tyrone, where it is thought she was murdered. Mr Grime said today: “We were over earlier this year and three times in total since the Attracta Harron case. “With the Attracta investigation we came over for a week and on the last day, before we came back to the UK, we decided we would search the car. The stuff Eddie found was then taken away for forensic examination. “Then when a search area was identified Eddie found the body as well. As far as the Arlene case goes, however, there has been nothing to date.” Eddie has just returned from the US where he has been helping the FBI in a murder case. Mr Grime said: “Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience. “I do some training with him every day.” Hamilton (23) received Ulster’s longest prison sentence after he was jailed for life for the murder of Mrs Harron.
But the significance of the alerts - to us, and to the police in 2007, if not to a court - is that they did not alert (falsely or otherwise) anywhere else.
Any police, anywhere in the world, would have taken them seriously.
Of course they should be taken seriously - they might have revealed the evidence sought. As it happens, they didn't.
However, the judge clearly felt that the significance (or lack thereof) of dogs or anything else was not within the remit of the suit that she was presiding.
Her concern was whether a reference to dogs alerting, as Amaral stated, could be found in the files. Yes, there was such a reference.
She did also note - in a global fashion - that the "facts" didn't represent a global appreciation of the contents of the investigaton's files. Some of the later findings invalidated earlier ones, but these weren't presented.
She also noted his introduction to the documentary and the general approach which could be interpreted by the public to represent a PJ recontruction of events.
Here's the introduction to that "documentary":
Gonçalo Amaral Former Polícia Judiciária coordinator
00.33 - My name is Gonçalo Amaral. I've been an investigator with the Polícia Judiciária for 27 years. I coordinated the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, on the 3rd of May 2007.
00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.
00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.
VC Filmes presents
Maddie The Truth of the Lie
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id225.html
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 03:31:08 PM
Have you got any proof of false alerts? According to Grime Eddie has none and the dogs passing with flying colours at FBI body farm comes from somebody close to Grime. The FBI used these dogs. The FBI wanted these dogs because they were outstanding at their job.
Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
Attracta dog helps FBI to track killer Published: August 22, 2006
The sniffer dog that helped detectives jail evil killer Trevor Hamilton has just returned from assisting the FBI with a murder probe in America. Six-year-old English springer spaniel Eddie’s career took off internationally shortly after he returned to Ulster for a third time to help in the hunt for missing Arlene Arkinson. Eddie helped police nail Hamilton after the victim-recovery dog found blood from Attracta Harron (63) on a mat from Hamilton’s burnt-out Hyundai car. He burned it the day that he murdered the retired librarian. Eddie found her body in a shallow grave in April 2003. Martin Grime, Eddie’s handler at the Dog Unit attached to South Yorkshire Police Station, today told how he has returned to Tyrone to search for Arlene (15). She went missing after leaving a disco in Bundoran, Co Donegal, on August 13 1994. Police have recently been concentrating their search in her native Castlederg in Tyrone, where it is thought she was murdered. Mr Grime said today: “We were over earlier this year and three times in total since the Attracta Harron case. “With the Attracta investigation we came over for a week and on the last day, before we came back to the UK, we decided we would search the car. The stuff Eddie found was then taken away for forensic examination. “Then when a search area was identified Eddie found the body as well. As far as the Arlene case goes, however, there has been nothing to date.” Eddie has just returned from the US where he has been helping the FBI in a murder case. Mr Grime said: “Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience. “I do some training with him every day.” Hamilton (23) received Ulster’s longest prison sentence after he was jailed for life for the murder of Mrs Harron.
What are we discussing? Whether the dogs' alerts are significant to the investigation or whether they are somehow relevant to the outcome of the civil trial?
In what way does this thread differ from the dozens of others on here?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 03:41:38 PM
Have you got any proof of false alerts? According to Grime Eddie has none and the dogs passing with flying colours at FBI body farm comes from somebody close to Grime. The FBI used these dogs. The FBI wanted these dogs because they were outstanding at their job.
Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
The way science works it is not necessary to prove false alerts; it is necessary to prove that positive alerts are connected to cadaver scent.
Eddie has reacted many times in this case to locations where no forensic evidence was found. Each of these cases could have been either true alerts with no residual evidence or false positive alerts where there never was any residual evidence. We just do not know.
Grime's evidence has two statements, both of which are possibly true, but together do not mean that Eddie has had no false alerts.
"'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training."
Grime fails to count non verified positive alerts as unknown, just ignoring them. Scientific method would require any non verified positives (as happened repeatedly in this investigation) as false positives. They cannot just be ignored as unknowns.
He the makes another statement that is new but not exclusive:
In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
This statement also omits times when Eddie alerted but there were neither forensics nor food stuffs present.
There is a gaping hole in Grime's account- known alerts where no forensics were found.
The current case contributes a considerable number to this total.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 03:45:14 PM
Have you got any proof of false alerts? According to Grime Eddie has none and the dogs passing with flying colours at FBI body farm comes from somebody close to Grime. The FBI used these dogs. The FBI wanted these dogs because they were outstanding at their job.
Attracta dog helps FBI to track killer Published: August 22, 2006
The sniffer dog that helped detectives jail evil killer Trevor Hamilton has just returned from assisting the FBI with a murder probe in America. Six-year-old English springer spaniel Eddie’s career took off internationally shortly after he returned to Ulster for a third time to help in the hunt for missing Arlene Arkinson. Eddie helped police nail Hamilton after the victim-recovery dog found blood from Attracta Harron (63) on a mat from Hamilton’s burnt-out Hyundai car. He burned it the day that he murdered the retired librarian. Eddie found her body in a shallow grave in April 2003. Martin Grime, Eddie’s handler at the Dog Unit attached to South Yorkshire Police Station, today told how he has returned to Tyrone to search for Arlene (15). She went missing after leaving a disco in Bundoran, Co Donegal, on August 13 1994. Police have recently been concentrating their search in her native Castlederg in Tyrone, where it is thought she was murdered. Mr Grime said today: “We were over earlier this year and three times in total since the Attracta Harron case. “With the Attracta investigation we came over for a week and on the last day, before we came back to the UK, we decided we would search the car. The stuff Eddie found was then taken away for forensic examination. “Then when a search area was identified Eddie found the body as well. As far as the Arlene case goes, however, there has been nothing to date.” Eddie has just returned from the US where he has been helping the FBI in a murder case. Mr Grime said: “Dogs like Eddie are very, very good at what they do and he has lots of operational experience. “I do some training with him every day.” Hamilton (23) received Ulster’s longest prison sentence after he was jailed for life for the murder of Mrs Harron.
However many 'successful sniffer dog" stories are quoted, they do not improve Eddie's reputation because of the repeated times when alerts have been made in error, which are much less often recorded.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 04:00:41 PM
Ohhh no. I can sense more arguments about coconuts about to surface.
Make mine a piñada colada then.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 04:12:39 PM
Oh, and every single controlled and reviewed testing of all types of scent dogs shows at least a few and often many false positives.
Additionally every dog in training initially makes errors as it gradually differentiates what its trainer wants it too. Over time false positives and false negatives decline but never disappear completely.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 04:26:54 PM
Oh, and every single controlled and reviewed testing of all types of scent dogs shows at least a few and often many false positives.
Additionally every dog in training initially makes errors as it gradually differentiates what its trainer wants it too. Over time false positives and false negatives decline but never disappear completely.
If a dog alerts, but no evidence has been been found, but neither can the possibility of one having been there at some point in time be formally excluded, what kind of alert is that?
If a dog correctly alerts to substances within its training parameters, but which are not related to humain remains, what does that alert count as?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 04:34:01 PM
Eddie alerted to the main bedroom, to the area behind the sofa in the living room, to the garden under the window, to the door of the hire car, to various items of clothing and to the toy 'cuddle cat'.
Keela alerted to the area behind the sofa in the living room and to the key and boot of the hire car.
In the areas where Keela alerted DNA evidence was found.
Nothing was found to support those alerts by Eddie which were not supported by Keela, but that is hardly surprising if he was alerting to cadaver scent.
Hardly suprising that the judge didn't want to get into doggiebabble, is it? ;)
Or Amaral's novel interpretation of DNA, for that matter...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 04:38:27 PM
Oh, and every single controlled and reviewed testing of all types of scent dogs shows at least a few and often many false positives.
Additionally every dog in training initially makes errors as it gradually differentiates what its trainer wants it too. Over time false positives and false negatives decline but never disappear completely.
The argument seems to have gone in the direction of whether the dogs are a useful tool or not. I think on balance they must be, otherwise they would not be widely used in various situations.
So, two of these useful tools were brought in to search various areas. In all the areas in which they were used they alerted only in areas occupied by Madeleine Mccann, her relatives and their belongings. As a result of these alerts some DNA evidence was found, some of which matched, either partially or completely, Madeleine and her father. Keela pointed out where the DNA evidence was to be found and Keela was correct, it was there.
Eddie alerted also. but his alerts didn't lead to any evidence being found. That doesn't mean he was alerting falsely or he was mistaken, it means no evidence was found.
Nevertheless the dog alerts should be seen as significant. They are an indication.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 04:39:27 PM
Eddie alerted to the main bedroom, to the area behind the sofa in the living room, to the garden under the window, to the door of the hire car, to various items of clothing and to the toy 'cuddle cat'.
Keela alerted to the area behind the sofa in the living room and to the key and boot of the hire car.
In the areas where Keela alerted DNA evidence was found.
Nothing was found to support those alerts by Eddie which were not supported by Keela, but that is hardly surprising if he was alerting to cadaver scent.
I think you may have made several errors.
What DNA evidence was found where Keel reacted? Whatever it was it could only be blood she reacted to as she does not react to cadaver scent.
Which alerts by Eddie are you talking a out? You do know that Eddie reacts to blood AND cadaver scent?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 04:44:18 PM
However many 'successful sniffer dog" stories are quoted, they do not improve Eddie's reputation because of the repeated times when alerts have been made in error, which are much less often recorded.
Eddie's reputation doesn't have to be improved as his record speaks for itself. If a dead body was in a room it doesn't mean forensics will find anything. Prout denied it for years (no forensic evidence) but he couldn't fool Eddie. He confessed, Hamilton confessed a body was there but there was no forensic proof! Which alerts were made in error? He alerts to cadaver scent if no body or blood is present. Keela alerted to microscopic blood in two places - between the tiles behind the sofa and in the car boot. The key had Gerry's blood.
GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn’t have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let’s say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann’s profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann’s.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 04:50:47 PM
The argument seems to have gone in the direction of whether the dogs are a useful tool or not. I think on balance they must be, otherwise they would not be widely used in various situations.
So, two of these useful tools were brought in to search various areas. In all the areas in which they were used they alerted only in areas occupied by Madeleine Mccann, her relatives and their belongings. As a result of these alerts some DNA evidence was found, some of which matched, either partially or completely, Madeleine and her father. Keela pointed out where the DNA evidence was to be found and Keela was correct, it was there.
Eddie alerted also. but his alerts didn't lead to any evidence being found. That doesn't mean he was alerting falsely or he was mistaken, it means no evidence was found.
Nevertheless the dog alerts should be seen as significant. They are an indication.
I love dogs and found a heart-warming story of a Springer spaniel police dog who has just been awarded a posthumous equivalent of a doggie OBE.
Eddie's reputation doesn't have to be improved as his record speaks for itself. If a dead body was in a room it doesn't mean forensics will find anything. Prout denied it for years (no forensic evidence) but he couldn't fool Eddie. He confessed, Hamilton confessed a body was there but there was no forensic proof! Which alerts were made in error? He alerts to cadaver scent if no body or blood is present. Keela alerted to microscopic blood in two places - between the tiles behind the sofa and in the car boot. The key had Gerry's blood.
GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn’t have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let’s say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann’s profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann’s.
Evidence of positive results does not improve the possibility of error as those cases where dogs were used to no avail rarely get recorded.
It is a scientific fact that multiple false alerts have occurred in formal testing of scent dogs.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 04:54:08 PM
Eddie's reputation doesn't have to be improved as his record speaks for itself. If a dead body was in a room it doesn't mean forensics will find anything. Prout denied it for years (no forensic evidence) but he couldn't fool Eddie. He confessed, Hamilton confessed a body was there but there was no forensic proof! Which alerts were made in error? He alerts to cadaver scent if no body or blood is present. Keela alerted to microscopic blood in two places - between the tiles behind the sofa and in the car boot. The key had Gerry's blood.
GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn’t have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let’s say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann’s profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann’s.
Thanks for that. That was the main novel interpretation of forensic DNA that I had in mind...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 04:57:28 PM
The reports on the DNA found are in the files. All swabs taken as a result of Keela's alerts; http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
some of Eddie's alerts were not confirmed by Keela, so they weren't blood. Main bedroom of G5A for one.
What information was gained from the DNA found where Keela reacted.
The time that Eddie reacted and Keela did not could indicate cadaver scent but as no forensic material was found, it could equally have been a false negative by Keela or a false positive by Eddie; we shall never know.
Quite.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 02, 2015, 04:58:23 PM
This topic was resurrected because Pathfinder has shown that Eddie signalled to the T-Shirt Gerry was seen wearing on the morning after Madeleine went missing. This T-Shirt was not highlighted in the Eddie & Keela videos as having been contaminated by cadaver or blood. Only Sean's T-Shirt & Kate's top & trousers were honed in on by the cameraman. Is that because the PJ were intent on pinning a crime on Kate? Has Grime made a mistake in identifying what Eddie was alerting to? What was the difference between Eddie picking up Sean's T-Shirt & barking & then almost picking up Gerry's T-Shirt & barking? - then standing over other clothes & just barking? If the Grime was unable to precisely identify which items Eddie (not Keela) was really marking, were the indications worth anything at all?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lyall on May 02, 2015, 05:01:19 PM
What information was gained from the DNA found where Keela reacted.
The time that Eddie reacted and Keela did not could indicate cadaver scent but as no forensic material was found, it could equally have been a false negative by Keela or a false positive by Eddie; we shall never know.
Quite.
After the millions of words over the years the fact still remains neither alerted on any of the other searches they conducted during the same days. That was significant in 2007, and remains so.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 02, 2015, 05:05:12 PM
GA: The reports from the English labs… the English reports arrive shortly before the questionings that were scheduled. And it contained certain conclusions, if they thought they were inconclusive they shouldn’t have mentioned it, the question of the 15 alleles in a profile of 19 from the little girl, stating that they match Madeleine McCann, but they also say that it could have been a construction let’s say from various donors, from other persons, a contamination could have produced Madeleine McCann’s profile by coincidence. But there are no excuses for saying that it is not from Madeleine McCann because they held the profiles of the father, the mother, the siblings, therefore there are no doubts that at least within that family they only matched Madeleine McCann’s.
I am not sure what your point is. The 15/19 alleges found could not only have come from a mixture of DNA from both Kate and Gerry (a shared tissue or two tissues in the same place. It could also be from Sean and Amelia who between them are likely to share 15 alleges with Madeleine. Additionally as the sample had between three and five contributors it could have been any DNA randomly selected from a European population. This is quite clear in the final lab report. Amaral jumped the gun and misinterpreted the initial report which did not specify in detail the limited and mixed nature of the sample.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 05:11:23 PM
Would you care to elaborate so we can have a better understanding of what you are trying to say?
Look up the Black Swan effect on Wikipedia. Knowledge does not increase with additional confirmation, only by proving the opposite. Also 'heroic' dogs which help get a conviction get press coverage, unhelpful dog results do not.
Every scientific analysis of scent dogs which was adequately designed and available has shown at least a few and often many false positives and false negatives.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 05:13:34 PM
After the millions of words over the years the fact still remains neither alerted on any of the other searches they conducted during the same days. That was significant in 2007, and remains so.
It is not at all significant scientifically. There is a very simple reason that this might occur- what is called a serial error.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 02, 2015, 05:14:07 PM
I would also like to see those lovely dogs work on known outcomes i.e planted cadvers and old, almost cleaned, blood spots.
It would clear a few things up I am sure.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 05:16:40 PM
It was very significant in a case where the investigators - both Portuguese and British remember - had no other leads.
Significance in science has a specific meaning which differs from its normal usage. Normal usage approximates to "of utility in understanding the situation". In science it means a level of high probability that one thing is dependent on the other.
Your example has no scientific significance.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 05:28:34 PM
This topic was resurrected because Pathfinder has shown that Eddie signalled to the T-Shirt Gerry was seen wearing on the morning after Madeleine went missing. This T-Shirt was not highlighted in the Eddie & Keela videos as having been contaminated by cadaver or blood. Only Sean's T-Shirt & Kate's top & trousers were honed in on by the cameraman. Is that because the PJ were intent on pinning a crime on Kate? Has Grime made a mistake in identifying what Eddie was alerting to? What was the difference between Eddie picking up Sean's T-Shirt & barking & then almost picking up Gerry's T-Shirt & barking? - then standing over other clothes & just barking? If the Grime was unable to precisely identify which items Eddie (not Keela) was really marking, were the indications worth anything at all?
4 May 2007 (http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/4May2007/kate-mccann-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann-in-portugal-0setFl.jpg)
2:16
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 05:31:16 PM
I am not sure what your point is. The 15/19 alleges found could not only have come from a mixture of DNA from both Kate and Gerry (a shared tissue or two tissues in the same place. It could also be from Sean and Amelia who between them are likely to share 15 alleges with Madeleine. Additionally as the sample had between three and five contributors it could have been any DNA randomly selected from a European population. This is quite clear in the final lab report. Amaral jumped the gun and misinterpreted the initial report which did not specify in detail the limited and mixed nature of the sample.
Keela alerts to blood so how could blood come from 4 different people? Usually one person bleeds not 4 in the same exact spot.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 05:39:29 PM
Keela alerts to blood so how could blood come from 4 different people? Usually one person bleeds not 4.
Keela alerted to the back compartment of the Renault. This means there was probably blood there at some time. Samples were lifted so that they could be analysed but were such that it could not be decided what the source of the DNA was, blood or other human detritus. So it is quite possible that enough blood had been around to cause Keela to alert, but that the DNA came from a proximate source. Without trying your eughh factor, if Sean had stubbed his toe and the plaster was in the bag and also a tissue used after the McCanns had sex was in the same bag, the blood from Sean would cause Keela to alert, but the sample lifted from the semen/vaginal fluid would be certain to have the fifteen alleles found.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 02, 2015, 05:40:22 PM
Significance in science has a specific meaning which differs from its normal usage. Normal usage approximates to "of utility in understanding the situation". In science it means a level of high probability that one thing is dependent on the other.
Your example has no scientific significance.
The thread doesn't mention scientific significance. I would suggest that using your normal usage definition they have to be taken notice of, even if not relied on.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 02, 2015, 05:45:44 PM
Keela alerted to the back compartment of the Renault. This means there was probably blood there at some time. Samples were lifted so that they could be analysed but were such that it could not be decided what the source of the DNA was, blood or other human detritus. So it is quite possible that enough blood had been around to cause Keela to alert, but that the DNA came from a proximate source. Without trying your eughh factor, if Sean had stubbed his toe and the plaster was in the bag and also a tissue used after the McCanns had sex was in the same bag, the blood from Sean would cause Keela to alert, but the sample lifted from the semen/vaginal fluid would be certain to have the fifteen alleles found.
Yes we're moving into the realms of fantasy land but it figures for this case. 15 out of 19 matched Madeleine McCann's profile. But we will add up all the rest of the family to get the same match in the one exact spot in the boot 8@??)(
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 06:00:13 PM
Yes we're moving into the realms of fantasy land but it figures for this case. 15 out of 19 matched Madeleine McCann's profile. But we will add up all the rest of the family to get the same match in the one exact spot in the boot 8@??)(
I don't think you understand genetics. The alleles looked for in DNA ID are inherited, twenty halves from the mother and twenty halves from the father. In the case of the McCanns they happen to share one allele so there are only nineteen to act as markers. If you took that sexual tissue (with 38 markers) and tested it for DNA all of Madeleine's nineteen markers would be there because by definition her variety of markers is limited to those inherited from her parents.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 02, 2015, 06:11:47 PM
It has always intrigued me that DNA analysis has always been hailed as the gold standard in solving crime, yet when it came to the McCann case, suddenly it was 'too complex' to interpret.
One would think that if this is true, then it would happen frequently, and yet we never seem to hear of cases where this is put forward as a defence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 02, 2015, 06:24:39 PM
It has always intrigued me that DNA analysis has always been hailed as the gold standard in solving crime, yet when it came to the McCann case, suddenly it was 'too complex' to interpret.
One would think that if this is true, then it would happen frequently, and yet we never seem to hear of cases where this is put forward as a defence.
DNA analysis of single samples where there are only the markers from a single person are extremely accurate.
DNA analysis from cellular samples of mixed DNA are moderately useful.
What was used here was LCN DNA low copy number DNA. No cellular material was found, merely liquid contamination of trace amounts.
LCN DNA uses multiplier effects to reconstruct the DNA strands when only trace amounts unsuitable for analysis are available. It is still uncertain whether this process is adequate for court evidence.
Add to that the sample in this case was not from one person bur from three to five persons. Statistically any mixed sample from a random five Europeans would be fifty percent likely to contain 15 of Madeleine's markers.
Add to that that the extra people could have been family who would all share a selection of a limited number of markers (and a mixture of Kate and Gerry's DNA would necessarily contain all of Madeleine's markers)
Total that up and LCN DNA analysis of a mixed sample of three to five donors' DNA, some of whom may have been (probably were) family, then it was not surprising that 15/19 of Madeleine's DNA was present.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 06:25:43 PM
This topic was resurrected because Pathfinder has shown that Eddie signalled to the T-Shirt Gerry was seen wearing on the morning after Madeleine went missing. This T-Shirt was not highlighted in the Eddie & Keela videos as having been contaminated by cadaver or blood. Only Sean's T-Shirt & Kate's top & trousers were honed in on by the cameraman. Is that because the PJ were intent on pinning a crime on Kate? Has Grime made a mistake in identifying what Eddie was alerting to? What was the difference between Eddie picking up Sean's T-Shirt & barking & then almost picking up Gerry's T-Shirt & barking? - then standing over other clothes & just barking? If the Grime was unable to precisely identify which items Eddie (not Keela) was really marking, were the indications worth anything at all?
The first item of clothing that Eddie threw up in the air and woofed at was a tiny pair of blue shorts, just beside the red plane T-shirt.
Grime said that the PJ had details of what Eddie alerted to - he apparently didn't. If you compare the video to the PJ list, it's somewhat confusing what the dog actually did alert to.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 02, 2015, 06:50:12 PM
DNA analysis of single samples where there are only the markers from a single person are extremely accurate.
DNA analysis from cellular samples of mixed DNA are moderately useful.
What was used here was LCN DNA low copy number DNA. No cellular material was found, merely liquid contamination of trace amounts.
LCN DNA uses multiplier effects to reconstruct the DNA strands when only trace amounts unsuitable for analysis are available. It is still uncertain whether this process is adequate for court evidence.
Add to that the sample in this case was not from one person bur from three to five persons. Statistically any mixed sample from a random five Europeans would be fifty percent likely to contain 15 of Madeleine's markers.
Add to that that the extra people could have been family who would all share a selection of a limited number of markers (and a mixture of Kate and Gerry's DNA would necessarily contain all of Madeleine's markers)
Total that up and LCN DNA analysis of a mixed sample of three to five donors' DNA, some of whom may have been (probably were) family, then it was not surprising that 15/19 of Madeleine's DNA was present.
Amaral clearly didn't understand what he was talking about, but insisted that he was an expert. And people did (and still do) believe that the only explanation for 15 matching alleles (not exclusive to her in any case) was that her thawing body had been in the boot.
In a way it's a shame that some of these issues couldn't have been dealt with in the trial, but I do understand why they couldn't be.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: VIXTE on May 02, 2015, 10:39:59 PM
For me, and I have been following this case very close since the day 2, the most significant were the Portuguese dogs trails. They came in very soon after the disappearance and they should have been investigated more.
Pity the opportunity was missed to find out who parked their car where the GNR dogs lost Madeleine's track. I personally feel this would be the most significant lead.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: sadie on May 02, 2015, 11:59:14 PM
For me, and I have been following this case very close since the day 2, the most significant were the Portuguese dogs trails. They came in very soon after the disappearance and they should have been investigated more.
Pity the opportunity was missed to find out who parked their car where the GNR dogs lost Madeleine's track. I personally feel this would be the most significant lead.
I agree Vixte.
Quite probably very significant.
That little car park opposite the tapas reception is where it makes sense that the abductors kept their getaway vehicle.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 12:05:38 AM
For me, and I have been following this case very close since the day 2, the most significant were the Portuguese dogs trails. They came in very soon after the disappearance and they should have been investigated more.
Pity the opportunity was missed to find out who parked their car where the GNR dogs lost Madeleine's track. I personally feel this would be the most significant lead.
I agree VIXTE. The Portuguese dogs followed the trail independently of each other and mirrored each other's route exactly, both losing the trail at the same location. If they had been following Madeleine's route to the children's club surely they would have continued and not stopped at the car park.
I don't think enough significance was paid to their reaction at the door of 5J. The rotting food situation should have raised more interest and queries than it did.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 12:06:33 AM
For me, and I have been following this case very close since the day 2, the most significant were the Portuguese dogs trails. They came in very soon after the disappearance and they should have been investigated more.
Pity the opportunity was missed to find out who parked their car where the GNR dogs lost Madeleine's track. I personally feel this would be the most significant lead.
I agree. Particularly the route taken by the dogs to reach the car park. There is nothing to suggest that Madeleine ever went left out of the front door and then cut down to the path behind the apartments.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 03, 2015, 12:24:07 PM
Look up the Black Swan effect on Wikipedia. Knowledge does not increase with additional confirmation, only by proving the opposite. Also 'heroic' dogs which help get a conviction get press coverage, unhelpful dog results do not.
Every scientific analysis of scent dogs which was adequately designed and available has shown at least a few and often many false positives and false negatives.
So is your belief that the Mucky Duck Effect has a bearing on the results and their interpretation, in the wider sense, when using EVR Dogs?
I don't follow so perhaps you would like to explain your argument slowly using plenty of small words so I don't become confused?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 03, 2015, 12:35:25 PM
That little car park opposite the tapas reception is where it makes sense that the abductors kept their getaway vehicle.
That car park is overlooked by the balcony of 606, where the Balu's and the Berry's were having their dinner and wine for the entire duration of the episode.
It is in open view of the T9 as they went to Tapas in dribs and drabs, and directly in front those of the T9 carrying out checks, at the point they exited the Tapas.
It is not a smart place for a getaway vehicle.
(Post corrected - originally said 605 - which is wrong.)
I would guess this has been debated to death already, but I'm not going to search for dog alerts, as I have better things to fritter away my time. I'll simply say I don't think the trail went cold there.
By the way, if it did, that was the short cut between 5A and OC 24 hr reception, which Madeleine took at least 3 times a day, (and probably 4).
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 03, 2015, 12:47:05 PM
I agree VIXTE. The Portuguese dogs followed the trail independently of each other and mirrored each other's route exactly, both losing the trail at the same location. If they had been following Madeleine's route to the children's club surely they would have continued and not stopped at the car park.
I don't think enough significance was paid to their reaction at the door of 5J. The rotting food situation should have raised more interest and queries than it did.
I agree as well.
Why was Eddie only tasked to check places directly related to the erstwhile arguidos (with only a quick sniff around the accommodation of the T7) as opposed to a broader sniff of other places of potential interest?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 12:53:50 PM
So is your belief that the Mucky Duck Effect has a bearing on the results and their interpretation, in the wider sense, when using EVR Dogs?
I don't follow so perhaps you would like to explain your argument slowly using plenty of small words so I don't become confused?
People who are trying to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of some offence against Madeleine need to claim that the dogs' reactions are probative evidence that a body was present in the apartment, and had contact with the clothes and the back of the car. They have misunderstood that most of the alerts were explainable by reaction to trace amounts of blood that could have come from any source, living or cadaver. This is because both Eddie and Keela alert to dried blood as per their training. Two results do suggest the possibility (not certainty) of cadaver odour- the cupboard and some clothes. An indication of cadaver odour requires a positive from Eddie and a negative from Keela.
Scent dogs are not 100% accurate. Even in this case there were reactions with no residue found which were either true reactions to minimal amounts or false alerts; se cannot know which.
Animal psychology studies show that animals are open to cueing- the Clever Hans effect. One study that used no target scent managed to get handlers to claim positive alerts only from those patches that they themselves believed to be contaminated even though all were clean
In summary to this point, dogs are a very useful indication of evidence but do not have any probative value as the law believes the science that the dogs are not infallible, in that they do make false positive and false negative alerts.
So what do people do who want to support their views that the McCanns are guilty. Well, they list case after case which hits the news where dogs were useful. No one has denied that the dogs were useful, but no one can show that the dogs are infallible.
So we have a scientific situation where Group A say "Scent Dogs are known to make errors even though they may be useful in finding evidence but they are not probative." and Group B say " But dogs have proved to be useful in all these cases. Group A say that that is very interesting, but producing further examples of utility is not helpful because it ignores failure to report the times that dogs are proved in error or uncertain.
It is called the Black Swan effect because before 1700 an example used in logic of a true statement was that 'all swans are white'. For centuries this was held to be the truth as every year more and more white swans were noted by ornithologists and logicians. Then Australia was discovered along with its black swans. One black swan added more information than a million more white swans could not.
This is the problem of 'induction'- it ignores possible future exceptions and any past ones that were not recorded.
In scientific terms it means that
If one is saying 'X is Y' is true Arguing that every X observed has always been Y Adding further examples of X being Y does not add to the truth of the statement. But one example of X being not Y overturns the contention.
So listing newspaper items about successful scent dogs does not affect the truth value of "All dogs are infallible" but one case of fallibility means that what is true is that "Scent dogs are NOT infallible."
Because scent dogs including Eddie and Keela have reacted when there is no evidence found, then by logic (not belief) 'Some scent dogs are fallible' which means that "Scent dogs are not infallible."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 12:58:16 PM
Why was Eddie only tasked to check places directly related to the erstwhile arguidos (with only a quick sniff around the accommodation of the T7) as opposed to a broader sniff of other places of potential interest?
The full half hour video of the dogs in the car park is an appalling exercise. I am trained in Human Behavioural Observation and understand how observer bias can affect collection of evidence. Grime forces Eddie to return to the McCanns car eleven times (the one with the prominent Maddie posters) yet allows him to continue after one return to all the others. This is edited out of the shorter version published by the Sun.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 01:14:02 PM
.............and off we go with another thread appearing to be for the sole purpose..........yet again..........of traducing a dog handler.
Was any official censure ever forthcoming as a result of the "appalling exercise?"
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 01:18:00 PM
Why was Eddie only tasked to check places directly related to the erstwhile arguidos (with only a quick sniff around the accommodation of the T7) as opposed to a broader sniff of other places of potential interest?
Maybe you should read the PJ Files more closely?
Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz. Mr. Murat's property at Pria Da Luz. Mr. McCann's Villa at Pria Da Luz ( Present occupancy). Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence. Western beach Pria da Luz. Eastern Beach Pria Da Luz. 10 Vehicles screened at Portimao. CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 01:32:44 PM
People who are trying to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of some offence against Madeleine need to claim that the dogs' reactions are probative evidence that a body was present in the apartment, and had contact with the clothes and the back of the car. They have misunderstood that most of the alerts were explainable by reaction to trace amounts of blood that could have come from any source, living or cadaver. This is because both Eddie and Keela alert to dried blood as per their training. Two results do suggest the possibility (not certainty) of cadaver odour- the cupboard and some clothes. An indication of cadaver odour requires a positive from Eddie and a negative from Keela.
Scent dogs are not 100% accurate. Even in this case there were reactions with no residue found which were either true reactions to minimal amounts or false alerts; se cannot know which.
Animal psychology studies show that animals are open to cueing- the Clever Hans effect. One study that used no target scent managed to get handlers to claim positive alerts only from those patches that they themselves believed to be contaminated even though all were clean
In summary to this point, dogs are a very useful indication of evidence but do not have any probative value as the law believes the science that the dogs are not infallible, in that they do make false positive and false negative alerts.
So what do people do who want to support their views that the McCanns are guilty. Well, they list case after case which hits the news where dogs were useful. No one has denied that the dogs were useful, but no one can show that the dogs are infallible.
So we have a scientific situation where Group A say "Scent Dogs are known to make errors even though they may be useful in finding evidence but they are not probative." and Group B say " But dogs have proved to be useful in all these cases. Group A say that that is very interesting, but producing further examples of utility is not helpful because it ignores failure to report the times that dogs are proved in error or uncertain.
It is called the Black Swan effect because before 1700 an example used in logic of a true statement was that 'all swans are white'. For centuries this was held to be the truth as every year more and more white swans were noted by ornithologists and logicians. Then Australia was discovered along with its black swans. One black swan added more information than a million more white swans could not.
This is the problem of 'induction'- it ignores possible future exceptions and any past ones that were not recorded.
In scientific terms it means that
If one is saying 'X is Y' is true Arguing that every X observed has always been Y Adding further examples of X being Y does not add to the truth of the statement. But one example of X being not Y overturns the contention.
So listing newspaper items about successful scent dogs does not affect the truth value of "All dogs are infallible" but one case of fallibility means that what is true is that "Scent dogs are NOT infallible."
Because scent dogs including Eddie and Keela have reacted when there is no evidence found, then by logic (not belief) 'Some scent dogs are fallible' which means that "Scent dogs are not infallible."
You gotta admit - it's hard to argue with that! 8((()*/
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 02:28:06 PM
the dog's alerts are not science...that's the whole point you are missing.
Aiming to convey and promote an impression that Eddie, given enough time and/or cuing from his handler............would probably have alerted anywhere and everywhere and not just in and around Areas McCann is the "point" and it hasn`t been missed.
We`ve been here before ; many times and the agenda is always the same.
That`s my "point."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 02:30:27 PM
Aiming to convey and promote an impression that Eddie, given enough time and/or cuing from his handler............would probably have alerted anywhere and everywhere and not just in and around Areas McCann is the "point" and it hasn`t been missed.
We`ve been here before ; many times and the agenda is always the same.
That`s my "point."
Is it your belief that Eddie was infallible, and completely impervious to unconscious handler bias? If so, what is the basis for your belief?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 03, 2015, 02:35:04 PM
People who are trying to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of some offence against Madeleine need to claim that the dogs' reactions are probative evidence that a body was present in the apartment, and had contact with the clothes and the back of the car. They have misunderstood that most of the alerts were explainable by reaction to trace amounts of blood that could have come from any source, living or cadaver. This is because both Eddie and Keela alert to dried blood as per their training. Two results do suggest the possibility (not certainty) of cadaver odour- the cupboard and some clothes. An indication of cadaver odour requires a positive from Eddie and a negative from Keela.
Scent dogs are not 100% accurate. Even in this case there were reactions with no residue found which were either true reactions to minimal amounts or false alerts; se cannot know which.
Animal psychology studies show that animals are open to cueing- the Clever Hans effect. One study that used no target scent managed to get handlers to claim positive alerts only from those patches that they themselves believed to be contaminated even though all were clean
In summary to this point, dogs are a very useful indication of evidence but do not have any probative value as the law believes the science that the dogs are not infallible, in that they do make false positive and false negative alerts.
So what do people do who want to support their views that the McCanns are guilty. Well, they list case after case which hits the news where dogs were useful. No one has denied that the dogs were useful, but no one can show that the dogs are infallible.
So we have a scientific situation where Group A say "Scent Dogs are known to make errors even though they may be useful in finding evidence but they are not probative." and Group B say " But dogs have proved to be useful in all these cases. Group A say that that is very interesting, but producing further examples of utility is not helpful because it ignores failure to report the times that dogs are proved in error or uncertain.
It is called the Black Swan effect because before 1700 an example used in logic of a true statement was that 'all swans are white'. For centuries this was held to be the truth as every year more and more white swans were noted by ornithologists and logicians. Then Australia was discovered along with its black swans. One black swan added more information than a million more white swans could not.
This is the problem of 'induction'- it ignores possible future exceptions and any past ones that were not recorded.
In scientific terms it means that
If one is saying 'X is Y' is true Arguing that every X observed has always been Y Adding further examples of X being Y does not add to the truth of the statement. But one example of X being not Y overturns the contention.
So listing newspaper items about successful scent dogs does not affect the truth value of "All dogs are infallible" but one case of fallibility means that what is true is that "Scent dogs are NOT infallible."
Because scent dogs including Eddie and Keela have reacted when there is no evidence found, then by logic (not belief) 'Some scent dogs are fallible' which means that "Scent dogs are not infallible."
Where I come from me duck we call this "bullshit baffles brains".
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2015, 02:35:19 PM
Aiming to convey and promote an impression that Eddie, given enough time and/or cuing from his handler............would probably have alerted anywhere and everywhere and not just in and around Areas McCann is the "point" and it hasn`t been missed.
We`ve been here before ; many times and the agenda is always the same.
That`s my "point."
my point is that is exactly what happened...Grime was looking for evidence...real evidence...so it was important that having brought the dogs at great expense nothing should be missed...taht's why he brought the dog's back again and again..to make sure nothing was missed.
Nothing was missed and the dog's found nothing
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 02:38:07 PM
Where I come from me duck we call this "bullshit baffles brains".
Alice, why are you baffled by what Oxford has carefully and logically explained to you? I thought you were supposed to be reasonably intelligent..? &%+((£
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 02:42:12 PM
Where I come from me duck we call this "bullshit baffles brains".
Where I come from its called well thought out argument based on well researched concepts readily accepted by all experts in the fields of animal behaviour, human behaviour and Logic. You can check all the references by Googling.
Where I come from your response is called wilful ignorance caused by failure to accept scientific fact.
It is basically an appeal "Don't attack my ignorance with facts."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 03:09:54 PM
Is it your belief that Eddie was infallible, and completely impervious to unconscious handler bias? If so, what is the basis for your belief?
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 03:21:13 PM
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.
That is not science. It is a claim by a handler.
Science says that some handler bias id almost certain.
He also puts two different concepts together in a possibly unconscious attempt to mask the fallibility of the dogs.
He states that False Positives are possible and then immediately says that Eddie has never alerted to FOODSTUFFS. He does not address possible false alerts to sources other than foodstuffs.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 03:21:50 PM
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.
Hmm.., hardly an impartial source is it, the dog's own handler's assessment of his and his creature's abilities... got anything a little more objective?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Moderator on May 03, 2015, 03:35:24 PM
I have removed the personal comments posted on this thread by Stephen and OxfordBloo.
Every member is entitled to post here as long as their posts are on topic, respectful and adhere to the forum rules. We are not concerned with what goes on in other forums as long as it does not spill over here. Should that happen however we will always act in the best interests of the forum and the majority of its members.
In line with policy, please report any posts which breach our rules.
MM
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on May 03, 2015, 03:49:28 PM
Is it in the handlers interest to 'cheat' with results? if he kept giving false reports it would show up. and he would lose all credibility.
I do not believe he was trying to pin evidence on the parents at all. The dogs gave alerts, it was enough to surely give cause to be further investigated.
Afterall lets say the alerts were accurate. It could have been that Maddie was killed by an intruder(deliberately or accidentally),they heard footsteps approaching and hid Maddie in the cupboard- waited until the coast was clear then make a run for it...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 03:58:35 PM
Science says that some handler bias id almost certain.
He also puts two different concepts together in a possibly unconscious attempt to mask the fallibility of the dogs.
He states that False Positives are possible and then immediately says that Eddie has never alerted to FOODSTUFFS. He does not address possible false alerts to sources other than foodstuffs.
1 Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes. Lit L1, Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM. Author information Abstract
Our aim was to evaluate how human beliefs affect working dog outcomes in an applied environment.
We asked whether beliefs of scent detection dog handlers affect team performance and evaluated relative importance of human versus dog influences on handlers' beliefs.
Eighteen drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams each completed two sets of four brief search scenarios (conditions).
Handlers were falsely told that two conditions contained a paper marking scent location (human influence).
Two conditions contained decoy scents (food/toy) to encourage dog interest in a false location (dog influence).
Conditions were (1) control; (2) paper marker; (3) decoy scent; and (4) paper marker at decoy scent.
No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used with search condition as the independent variable and number of alerts as the dependent variable.
Additional nonparametric tests compared human and dog influence.
There were 225 incorrect responses, with no differences in mean responses across conditions. Response patterns differed by condition. There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers.
Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations.
Handlers' beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts.
Human more than dog influences affected alert locations.
This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225441
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 03, 2015, 04:02:19 PM
Science says that some handler bias id almost certain.
He also puts two different concepts together in a possibly unconscious attempt to mask the fallibility of the dogs.
He states that False Positives are possible and then immediately says that Eddie has never alerted to FOODSTUFFS. He does not address possible false alerts to sources other than foodstuffs.
Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.
The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/martingrimebjcase.JPG)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 04:05:50 PM
Is it in the handlers interest to 'cheat' with results? if he kept giving false reports it would show up. and he would lose all credibility.
I do not believe he was trying to pin evidence on the parents at all. The dogs gave alerts, it was enough to surely give cause to be further investigated.
Afterall lets say the alerts were accurate. It could have been that Maddie was killed by an intruder(deliberately or accidentally),they heard footsteps approaching and hid Maddie in the cupboard- waited until the coast was clear then make a run for it...
You fail to appreciate that the dogs are capable of picking up on imperceptible signals from the handler which the handler doesn't even know s/he is sending out.
Anyone with any experience of pet dogs knows how telepathic they appear to be.
So quoting 'clever Hans' and our new one ... 'black swan' in relation to dog searches ... is not an accusation against the handler ... it is just a fact corroborated by many independent studies.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 04:08:42 PM
Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.
The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/martingrimebjcase.JPG)
I believe Morse was trained in the USA where it is legal to use body parts for training purposes.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 04:19:51 PM
It would have been a very different story imo if the dogs had alerted thick and fast on Murat's property and his car. Those who accuse people of bias display their own bias all the time.
Dogs are used as tools in many different situations. They are obviously very useful tools or they wouldn't be used. Why would people go to such lengths to discredit two of these dogs unless it was to support their own agenda?
The dog's alerts did not lead to the recovery of enough evidence in this case to prove anything. You can argue about the dog's abilities as much as you like, but the alerts happened. No policeman worth his pay would then dismiss them completely and say 'Oh, dogs! Waste of time!'. He would treat the alerts as something which had to be noted, because taken with other evidence their alerts could become significant.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 04:20:51 PM
The handler would presumably then be "unconsciously cuing" those areas which produced an alert by Eddie?
It could be suggested that, if so,.........what "unconsciously" could have motivated the selection of those areas in and around the apartment which elicited a response?
Why not other areas?
Why not a stronger "unconscious cue" to the flower bed at which only a "weak response" was elicited?
"Scientific" research and observations do not entirely relate to the case in hand.
They can be used, however, to attempt to discredit by association, can`t they ?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:25:47 PM
Is it in the handlers interest to 'cheat' with results? if he kept giving false reports it would show up. and he would lose all credibility.
I do not believe he was trying to pin evidence on the parents at all. The dogs gave alerts, it was enough to surely give cause to be further investigated.
Afterall lets say the alerts were accurate. It could have been that Maddie was killed by an intruder(deliberately or accidentally),they heard footsteps approaching and hid Maddie in the cupboard- waited until the coast was clear then make a run for it...
You are Mistaken (Haha)
The Clever Hans effect is entirely sub conscious. The handler does not even know that he or she is doing it. They have no control over it but unconsciously give out unconscious 'tells' that affect the behaviour of the dog. If the handler expects to find something, the dog is more likely to alert. Grime knew which apartment and which car belonged to the McCanns.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:26:49 PM
1 Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes. Lit L1, Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM. Author information Abstract
Our aim was to evaluate how human beliefs affect working dog outcomes in an applied environment.
We asked whether beliefs of scent detection dog handlers affect team performance and evaluated relative importance of human versus dog influences on handlers' beliefs.
Eighteen drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams each completed two sets of four brief search scenarios (conditions).
Handlers were falsely told that two conditions contained a paper marking scent location (human influence).
Two conditions contained decoy scents (food/toy) to encourage dog interest in a false location (dog influence).
Conditions were (1) control; (2) paper marker; (3) decoy scent; and (4) paper marker at decoy scent.
No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used with search condition as the independent variable and number of alerts as the dependent variable.
Additional nonparametric tests compared human and dog influence.
There were 225 incorrect responses, with no differences in mean responses across conditions. Response patterns differed by condition. There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers.
Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations.
Handlers' beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts.
Human more than dog influences affected alert locations.
This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225441
Thank you.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:29:41 PM
Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.
The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/martingrimebjcase.JPG)
That is exactly what I was saying about induction. Production of additional cases where dogs were successful does not affect the question, but the Scientific paper that Brietta has linked to above indicates that dogs are open to unconscious handler bias.
Piling up further positive examples does not advance the debate.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 04:30:10 PM
It would have been a very different story imo if the dogs had alerted thick and fast on Murat's property and his car. Those who accuse people of bias display their own bias all the time.
Dogs are used as tools in many different situations. They are obviously very useful tools or they wouldn't be used. Why would people go to such lengths to discredit two of these dogs unless it was to support their own agenda?
The dog's alerts did not lead to the recovery of enough evidence in this case to prove anything. You can argue about the dog's abilities as much as you like, but the alerts happened. No policeman worth his pay would then dismiss them completely and say 'Oh, dogs! Waste of time!'. He would treat the alerts as something which had to be noted, because taken with other evidence their alerts could become significant.
Now you come to mention it, I believe one of Murat's cars was not inspected by the dogs because it was in the garage at the time. However I would be of the opinion that exactly the same conditions would apply. The dog 'alert' would be indicative and evidence to prove the alert would have to be found otherwise ... nada!
What I found interesting regarding the dog search of Jenny Murat's residence and the other residences searched is that over the years no workman or occupant had ever bled in it ... no one had cut themselves shaving ...
I think that is worth ruminating over.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:33:00 PM
It would have been a very different story imo if the dogs had alerted thick and fast on Murat's property and his car. Those who accuse people of bias display their own bias all the time.
Dogs are used as tools in many different situations. They are obviously very useful tools or they wouldn't be used. Why would people go to such lengths to discredit two of these dogs unless it was to support their own agenda?
The dog's alerts did not lead to the recovery of enough evidence in this case to prove anything. You can argue about the dog's abilities as much as you like, but the alerts happened. No policeman worth his pay would then dismiss them completely and say 'Oh, dogs! Waste of time!'. He would treat the alerts as something which had to be noted, because taken with other evidence their alerts could become significant.
No one is saying that dog alerts should be ignored. What we are saying is that dog alerts should be seen against the scientific background on their accuracy. Science suggests strongly that they will make errors of false positive and false negative type.
Dog alerts are useful indicators of evidence but at not probative evidence by themselves.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 04:33:45 PM
The uncontrollable "unconscious alerts" were apparently not enough to elicit responses in many areas of the apartment..............
How was that achieved?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:36:29 PM
The handler would presumably then be "unconsciously cuing" those areas which produced an alert by Eddie?
It could be suggested that, if so,.........what "unconsciously" could have motivated the selection of those areas in and around the apartment which elicited a response?
Why not other areas?
Why not a stronger "unconscious cue" to the flower bed at which only a "weak response" was elicited?
"Scientific" research and observations do not entirely relate to the case in hand.
They can be used, however, to attempt to discredit by association, can`t they ?
What scientific research does show is that although dog alerts are useful, they are not reliable or accurate and are open to several types of error including unconscious handler bias.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:39:46 PM
The uncontrollable "unconscious alerts" were apparently not enough to elicit responses in many areas of the apartment..............
How was that achieved?
The dogs relate to unconscious 'tells'. Those tells are not continuous but increase when the handler is cued. For instance Eddie could not have failed to understand that cuddle cat was of interest or the Renault was of interest because Grime's repeated call backs would have acted as a tell.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 04:41:13 PM
No one is saying that dog alerts should be ignored. What we are saying is that dog alerts should be seen against the scientific background on their accuracy. Science suggests strongly that they will make errors of false positive and false negative type.
Dog alerts are useful indicators of evidence but at not probative evidence by themselves.
I think we are aware of that.
"Scientific background" would need to be applied to the individual case and not used as generalisations in order to negate the alerts around all things McCann.
( Otherwise it could be viewed as Poster Bias.........conscious or unconscious.)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 04:42:15 PM
That is exactly what I was saying about induction. Production of additional cases where dogs were successful does not affect the question, but the Scientific paper that Brietta has linked to above indicates that dogs are open to unconscious handler bias.
Piling up further positive examples does not advance the debate.
Neither does piling up negative examples. Why can't people just accept that the alerts are indications? They are just as deserving of attention as witness sightings of strange men, open windows, locked or unlocked doors, the level of light around G5A, cigarette butts on a veranda, the GNR sniffer dog results, Sangresman, Cooperman, Smithman, and the Victoria Beckham woman.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 04:48:46 PM
The dogs relate to unconscious 'tells'. Those tells are not continuous but increase when the handler is cued. For instance Eddie could not have failed to understand that cuddle cat was of interest or the Renault was of interest because Grime's repeated call backs would have acted as a tell. [/quote
Eddie was "encouraged" around the bathroom, with no alerts.........(no "tells" of any sort ?)
He could have also failed to alert to a boy`s t shirt on account of no expectation in terms of "tells"..........but alerted.........?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 04:55:06 PM
Neither does piling up negative examples. Why can't people just accept that the alerts are indications? They are just as deserving of attention as witness sightings of strange men, open windows, locked or unlocked doors, the level of light around G5A, cigarette butts on a veranda, the GNR sniffer dog results, Sangresman, Cooperman, Smithman, and the Victoria Beckham woman.
No. A single contrary finding negates the contention that the dogs are infallible.
We know the dogs are only partially accurate. The only question is how Inaccurate they are.
In the same way as the other indications you list, they have a limited reliability and cannot be probative.
Dogs don't lie, but they are open to many potential errors.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 03, 2015, 04:58:17 PM
Neither does piling up negative examples. Why can't people just accept that the alerts are indications? They are just as deserving of attention as witness sightings of strange men, open windows, locked or unlocked doors, the level of light around G5A, cigarette butts on a veranda, the GNR sniffer dog results, Sangresman, Cooperman, Smithman, and the Victoria Beckham woman.
They were treated as indications and the areas indicated thoroughly checked ... in the case of the door of the Renault the substance alerted to was material from Dr G McCann ... in the boot Keela's alert to blood was verified.
Personally I do not rate Eddie's video performance ... it was not his trained response to pick up evidence in his mouth and toss it around, and he is on video lifting food debris (chicken leg or kebab) from the waste in one of the apartments. My opinion only, but it would have been interesting to see what the defence in a trial would have made of it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Anna on May 03, 2015, 05:16:03 PM
Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.
The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program. (http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/martingrimebjcase.JPG)
There was no body ever found in this case either IIRC, or has she been found since?
A link to the video and story in 2012 of this case and Grime in court:-
As far as I know no-one has said that the dogs are infallible. Thank you for acknowledging that the alerts are indications.
My ears still ring from the cries of "Dogs don't lie!"
I am pleased that you are now aware that dogs are fallible and do make alerts which are false, whether positive or negative. They can react where there is no scent and fail to react where there is.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 03, 2015, 05:37:59 PM
My ears still ring from the cries of "Dogs don't lie!"
I am pleased that you are now aware that dogs are fallible and do make alerts which are false, whether positive or negative. They can react where there is no scent and fail to react where there is.
Who said that? I never have. I haven't looked in any depth at the competing evidence on dogs. I have observed that they are seen as a useful tool by all sorts of agencies for all sorts of purposes. I know that Keela was right, I don't know whether Eddie was right or not when he alerted where Keela didn't. His alerts should not be dismissed as wrong, however. They should be borne in mind.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 05:47:53 PM
Who said that? I never have. I haven't looked in any depth at the competing evidence on dogs. I have observed that they are seen as a useful tool by all sorts of agencies for all sorts of purposes. I know that Keela was right, I don't know whether Eddie was right or not when he alerted where Keela didn't. His alerts should not be dismissed as wrong, however. They should be borne in mind.
How can you even start to 'know' whether Eddie or Keela were 'right'.
You do realise I hope that a reaction from Eddie alone can signify blood without cadaver odour?.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 06:06:37 PM
How can you even start to 'know' whether Eddie or Keela were 'right'.
You do realise I hope that a reaction from Eddie alone can signify blood without cadaver odour?.
Keela alerts to blood. DNA was found where she alerted. although the FSS didn't know what bodily fluids the DNA came from it is more likely than not to be blood because that is what Keela detects; not other bodily fluids. Sometimes the dogs know more than the scientists.
Eddie alerts to blood and cadaver scent. He alerted to the car. Keela also alerted, confirming that blood was present. DNA was found. The FSS didn't know which bodily fluid was there. Keela alerts only to blood so it probably was blood.
Eddie alerted in places where Keela didn't. Because Keela didn't alert, he was likely to be alerting to cadaver scent.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 06:08:55 PM
Did Keela alert anywhere else apart from to the McCanns' property?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 06:11:41 PM
Keela alerts to blood. DNA was found where she alerted. although the FSS didn't know what bodily fluids the DNA came from it is more likely than not to be blood because that is what Keela detects; not other bodily fluids. Sometimes the dogs know more than the scientists.
Eddie alerts to blood and cadaver scent. He alerted to the car. Keela also alerted, confirming that blood was present. DNA was found. The FSS didn't know which bodily fluid was there. Keela alerts only to blood so it probably was blood.
Eddie alerted in places where Keela didn't. Because Keela didn't alert, he was likely to be alerting to cadaver scent.
Dogs never 'know' anything. They may sense things but do not have 'knowledge' which requires higher cognitive function.
You cannot know anything about what Eddie or Keela alerted to because of the uncertainty involved.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 03, 2015, 06:17:48 PM
The dogs relate to unconscious 'tells'. Those tells are not continuous but increase when the handler is cued. For instance Eddie could not have failed to understand that cuddle cat was of interest or the Renault was of interest because Grime's repeated call backs would have acted as a tell.
CC is a toy so it was hidden in the cupboard so Eddie couldn't see it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 06:24:51 PM
Keela alerts to blood. DNA was found where she alerted. although the FSS didn't know what bodily fluids the DNA came from it is more likely than not to be blood because that is what Keela detects; not other bodily fluids. Sometimes the dogs know more than the scientists.
Eddie alerts to blood and cadaver scent. He alerted to the car. Keela also alerted, confirming that blood was present. DNA was found. The FSS didn't know which bodily fluid was there. Keela alerts only to blood so it probably was blood.
Eddie alerted in places where Keela didn't. Because Keela didn't alert, he was likely to be alerting to cadaver scent.
The dogs have shown to be better than forensics. Look at the Harron case for a perfect example. Forensics found nothing in Hamilton's burnt out car or Adrian Prout but Eddie did. His work helped solve both cases. Eddie has a knack of getting things right. Pity the same thing can't be said about forensics.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 03, 2015, 06:32:29 PM
Grime was somewhat disingenuous in his statement, which for me rings some alarm bells:
"Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door."
The video clearly shows a "find madeleine" poster in the rear nearside window the car. And yet Grime claims he had no prior knowledge of the provenance of the car. Really?
The video then shows the dog at each car in turn, being called back once to each vehicle and then moving on.
Until he comes to the McCanns car (the only one with the posters of Madeleine in the windows).
And one the first, second, third, fourth and fifth passes the dog showed no interest in the car. The handler remains by the car. The video then shows Grime pointing to certain parts of the car and eventually the dog does alert on the 8th or 9th attempt.
I would love someone to explain to me how that is not a demonstration of cueing by the dog's handler.
Video 1:13 and 1:18 to 1:24 approx.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 06:34:15 PM
Well I'm not your researcher - unless you're paying, that is?
Blimey, you're touchy - if you didn't want to answer my question with a simple yes or no, just ignore it. Maybe a more helpful person will be along to answer instead. Did Keela react to anything other than McCann-related property?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
Grime was somewhat disingenuous in his statement, which for me rings some alarm bells:
"Ten vehicles were screened in an underground multi storey car park at Portimao. The vehicles, of which I did not know the owner details, were parked on an empty floor with 20-30 feet between each. The vehicle placement video recording and management of the process was conducted by the PJ. The EVRD was then tasked to search the area. When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking. I recognise this behaviour as the dog indicating scent emitting from the inside of the vehicle through the seal around the door."
The video clearly shows a "find madeleine" poster in the rear nearside window the car. And yet Grime claims he had no prior knowledge of the provenance of the car. Really?
The video then shows the dog at each car in turn, being called back once to each vehicle and then moving on.
Until he comes to the McCanns car (the only one with the posters of Madeleine in the windows).
And one the first, second, third, fourth and fifth passes the dog showed no interest in the car. The handler remains by the car. The video then shows Grime pointing to certain parts of the car and eventually the dog does alert on the 8th or 9th attempt.
I would love someone to explain to me how that is not a demonstration of cueing by the dog's handler.
Video 1:13 and 1:18 to 1:24 approx.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id167.html
That indicates to me that he is either lining there or in denial. Anyone who saw the video knows that the Renault was plastered with "Find Maddie" posters.
Elsewhere he uses distorted English to place himself and his skills in the best possible light.
Only where he has to consider what he might have to swear to in court does he then introduce the requisite scientific and legal uncertainty.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 06:38:59 PM
Blimey, you're touchy - if you didn't want to answer my question with a simple yes or no, just ignore it. Maybe a more helpful person will be along to answer instead. Did Keela react to anything other than McCann-related property?
I am not aware of it. Which means that PdL must be the cleanest environment ever. No one stubbed their toe or nicked themselves shaving. No tampons in bins. No gingivitis. No nose bleeds.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 03, 2015, 06:39:26 PM
Thank you OxfordBloo
The name "Duarte Levy" on each video also rings alarm bells.
If I didnt know better I would say it was a promotional video.......
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 06:40:49 PM
I am not aware of it. Which means that PdL must be the cleanest environment ever. No one stubbed their toe or nicked themselves shaving. No tampons in bins. No gingivitis. No nose bleeds.
This is what I find hard to understand also. No blood ever spilt anywhere but in the McCann property - what are the chances of that, eh?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 06:42:01 PM
Hmmm...I was hoping for some sort of reasonable explanation as to why Keela only alerted to blood on McCann-related property. Seems like you're not going to be the one to supply it but thanks anyway.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 03, 2015, 07:13:14 PM
Hmmm...I was hoping for some sort of reasonable explanation as to why Keela only alerted to blood on McCann-related property. Seems like you're not going to be the one to supply it but thanks anyway.
You are the one who seems to think that PDL apartments are like the scene of a slasher film.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 07:14:13 PM
You are the one who seems to think that PDL apartments are like the scene of a slasher film.
Exactly the opposite. Eddie and Keela can detect minute samples of blood months after they are deposited. Every bathroom in the country must have some blood contamination what with minor trauma and menstruation. Every kitchen must have housed klutzs that cut themselves with knives when preparing food. Stubbed toes, calls and nose bleeds.
And they only reacted in 5a months after the McCanns bad left and several other residents passed through.
Truly amazing. Especially as no gross blood contamination was found at any point, merely pin pricks.
I smell a rat, or at least a dog.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 07:24:36 PM
The owner of this forum is in contact with Martin Grime and has previously offered to ask Mr Grime some questions. Once this case has been shelved / closed / solved that's a question that will be top of my list - why does he think Keela didn't alert to any other apartment or locale apart from McCann-related?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 07:27:10 PM
The owner of this forum is in contact with Martin Grime and has previously offered to ask Mr Grime some questions. Once this case has been shelved / closed / solved that's a question that will be top of my list - why does he think Keela didn't alert to any other apartment or locale apart from McCann-related?
Or Eddie who is a blood dog also.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 07:38:37 PM
Blimey, you're touchy - if you didn't want to answer my question with a simple yes or no, just ignore it. Maybe a more helpful person will be along to answer instead. Did Keela react to anything other than McCann-related property?
Keela would have only been deployed following a cadaver contaminant alert by Eddie ?
*snip*
"The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas on the tiled floor area behind the sofa and on the curtain in the area that was in contact with the floor behind the sofa. This would indicate to the likely presence of human blood.
The forensic science support officers were then deployed to recover items for laboratory analysis.
There were no alert indications from the remaining properties. I did however see the dog search in the kitchen waste bins. These contained meat foodstuffs including pork and did not result in any false alert response. "
The owner of this forum is in contact with Martin Grime and has previously offered to ask Mr Grime some questions. Once this case has been shelved / closed / solved that's a question that will be top of my list - why does he think Keela didn't alert to any other apartment or locale apart from McCann-related?
..........because she was deployed in areas indicated by Eddie in order to retrieve samples possibly associated with a cadaver rather than a nosebleed or shaving related incident, maybe?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 03, 2015, 07:43:57 PM
Exactly the opposite. Eddie and Keela can detect minute samples of blood months after they are deposited. Every bathroom in the country must have some blood contamination what with minor trauma and menstruation. Every kitchen must have housed klutzs that cut themselves with knives when preparing food. Stubbed toes, calls and nose bleeds.
And they only reacted in 5a months after the McCanns bad left and several other residents passed through.
Truly amazing. Especially as no gross blood contamination was found at any point, merely pin pricks.
I smell a rat, or at least a dog.
Eddie goes in first and where he alerts Keela comes to that spot to detect any blood. Keela doesn't sniff every inch of every apartment for microscopic blood. What nonsense! Cadaver scent and blood can be found in the same location believe it or not.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 03, 2015, 07:46:23 PM
I am not aware of it. Which means that PdL must be the cleanest environment ever. No one stubbed their toe or nicked themselves shaving. No tampons in bins. No gingivitis. No nose bleeds.
Every potential "crime scene" would be contaminated with these samples, though........dogs would be on a permanent alert-fest were there not more to this than you understand, maybe?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 07:53:53 PM
Eddie goes in first and where he alerts Keela comes to that spot to detect any blood. Keela doesn't sniff every inch of every apartment for microscopic blood. What nonsense! Cadaver scent and blood can be found in the same location believe it or not.
When Eddie alerts is it to the precise spot where a cadaver may have lain, or is it a generalized alert, taking into account scent cones, air movement and all that blah?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 07:56:54 PM
..........because she was deployed in areas indicated by Eddie in order to retrieve samples possibly associated with a cadaver rather than a nosebleed or shaving related incident, maybe?
Eddie alerts to blood too though (let us not forget the famous sexy tissue alert in Jersey) so why no alerts anywhere except in McCann-related property?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 08:22:22 PM
Eddie alerts to blood too though (let us not forget the famous sexy tissue alert in Jersey) so why no alerts anywhere except in McCann-related property?
Why no alerts anywhere and everywhere any time the EVRD is either deployed or in passing, then?
Is the CSI blood alert response ( the still, silent pointing down posture) different from the cadaver contaminant bark with the head in the air?
Why deploy Keela at all if the entire process could be covered by Eddie alone?
There simply must be more to this than we understand.............because the EVRD would have no value in investigations were he to be identifying nosebleeds everywhere.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 03, 2015, 08:29:25 PM
Why no alerts anywhere and everywhere any time the EVRD is either deployed or in passing, then?
Is the CSI blood alert response ( the still, silent pointing down posture) different from the cadaver contaminant bark with the head in the air?
Why deploy Keela at all if the entire process could be covered by Eddie alone?
There simply must be more to this than we understand.............because the EVRD would have no value in investigations were he to be identifying nosebleeds everywhere.
Eddie was the GP. Keela was the haematologist.
In this case, nothing of forensic significance was found as a result.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 08:30:35 PM
Every potential "crime scene" would be contaminated with these samples, though........dogs would be on a permanent alert-fest were there not more to this than you understand, maybe?
But Grime tells us they can detect the minutest samples of blood. He cannot have it both ways.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 08:32:12 PM
Why no alerts anywhere and everywhere any time the EVRD is either deployed or in passing, then?
Is the CSI blood alert response ( the still, silent pointing down posture) different from the cadaver contaminant bark with the head in the air?
Why deploy Keela at all if the entire process could be covered by Eddie alone?
There simply must be more to this than we understand.............because the EVRD would have no value in investigations were he to be identifying nosebleeds everywhere.
Sometimes he alerts to blood sometimes he doesn't. How can you rely on a tool like that to tell you definitively that a cadaver was once present? Answer: you can't. end of.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 08:35:13 PM
Sometimes he alerts to blood sometimes he doesn't. How can you rely on a tool like that to tell you definitively that a cadaver was once present? Answer: you can't. end of.
No. He always alerts to blood. He also always reacts to cadaver. The only decision is a negative orositive indication by Keela which differentiates Eddie's responses.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 03, 2015, 08:53:31 PM
No. He always alerts to blood. He also always reacts to cadaver. The only decision is a negative orositive indication by Keela which differentiates Eddie's responses.
But what's "cadaver"? Not necessarily a dead human being. If someone slices off the tip of their finger, and the dog found it... it would alert to the scent of human decomposition. Meanwhile, the person could be very much alive, nursing a sore thumb.
There's also the unexplained alert to sex tissues in Jersey - which were apparently within his "training parameters". Keela also seemingly later reacted. There's no way of knowing from the report whether it was obvious what Eddie had reacted to and Grime jotted it down at the time, but dismissed it as irrelevant to the investigation, or whether he noted Eddie's reaction after noticing Keela's.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 08:56:57 PM
Why no permanent state of alert and blood-signalling at every site of every investigation or search?
Blood contaminant of every age and stage of decomposition everywhere?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 08:58:53 PM
But what's "cadaver"? Not necessarily a dead human being. If someone slices off the tip of their finger, and the dog found it... it would alert to the scent of human decomposition. Meanwhile, the person could be very much alive, nursing a sore thumb.
There's also the unexplained alert to sex tissues in Jersey - which were apparently within his "training parameters". Keela also seemingly later reacted. There's no way of knowing from the report whether it was obvious what Eddie had reacted to and Grime jotted it down at the time, but dismissed it as irrelevant to the investigation, or whether he noted Eddie's reaction after noticing Keela's.
No. Cadaver means dead body.
Eddie does however react to body parts that have been amputated. Although whole bodies have a much more aggressive putrefaction rate because of the bowel flora.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 08:59:31 PM
Why no permanent state of alert and blood-signalling at every site of every investigation or search?
Blood contaminant of every age and stage of decomposition everywhere?
Exactly.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 09:20:09 PM
You seem to be in a bit of a fix now. Can no-one explain why these dogs don't alert like mad all the time then? After all, as you say, there's blood and bits of people everywhere! 8(0(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 09:24:04 PM
You seem to be in a bit of a fix now. Can no-one explain why these dogs don't alert like mad all the time then? After all, as you say, there's blood and bits of people everywhere! 8(0(*
If anyone is in a fix, it is dog worshipers.
Grime made the claim that they react to the smallest stimulus. He needs to explain why they didn't alert elsewhere.
I know what I think, but it would not be popular with dog worshipers.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 09:35:06 PM
Eddie does however react to body parts that have been amputated. Although whole bodies have a much more aggressive putrefaction rate because of the bowel flora.
I think it would have been clearer if the term "human decomposition" had been used.
Of course the scent of a whole decomposing body would be different to a specific type of decaying body substance. And the dominant VOCs change over time.
Grime's comment on the CuddleCat episode (and even the PJ DCCB found that sequence bewildering) was:
The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately.
It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
I have no problems with the use of dogs as an asset to help humans find evidence. In this case, no corroborating evidence was found.
Yes, Lowe found sufficient DNA of a cop on a tile, and sufficient DNA on a key fob that was quite likely to be Gerry's. There is no corroboration that that DNA was blood. The only indication that it may have been was due to Keela's alert as that is all she was trained to detect.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 09:45:29 PM
He " directed" Eddie to and around a bathroom and other areas............no alert.
So...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 03, 2015, 09:45:33 PM
I really don't care one way or the other about the dogs, but SY must have faith in them otherwise they wouldn't had gone to the expense of taking them over to Portugal last summer.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 09:46:29 PM
I really don't care one way or the other about the dogs, but SY must have faith in them otherwise they wouldn't had gone to the expense of taking them over to Portugal last summer.
They are useful as indicators. But not as evidence providers.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 03, 2015, 09:53:38 PM
He " directed" Eddie to and around a bathroom and other areas............no alert.
This would only be an issue in a criminal trial, but I'm still curious as to whether Grime was aware of Amaral's theory prior to the searches.
I'd find it quite extraordinary if Grime wasn't aware that the child disappeared from 5A. I'd also find it odd if he hadn't realised who the only Renault Scenic plastered with Missing Madeleine posters belonged to.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 09:54:03 PM
"only where he directs" was what you stated...........Did he "direct" to a boy`s t shirt from some sort of expectation?
.........and how would the dog decide in which area of a room or site the handler`s "directing" should lead to an alert?
I didn't say always where he directs them, only that be has some control over whether or not they do alert. They ma not sleet where he does not encourage him, but are more likely to alert where he is obviously interested.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 10:03:53 PM
I didn't say always where he directs them, only that be has some control over whether or not they do alert. They ma not sleet where he does not encourage him, but are more likely to alert where he is obviously interested.
Please explain how it would be in any handler's interests to direct his dog's alerts? If that happened regularly and no evidence was found he would soon find himself out of a job.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 03, 2015, 10:07:25 PM
Please explain how it would be in any handler's interests to direct his dog's alerts? If that happened regularly and no evidence was found he would soon find himself out of a job.
Do you accept that Eddie alerts to minute traces of blood, even months after they have been spilt? Do you accept that it is highly unlikely that no blood was ever spilt in any of the places Eddie was directed to, apart from on McCann property?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 10:13:12 PM
Do you accept that Eddie alerts to minute traces of blood, even months after they have been spilt? Do you accept that it is highly unlikely that no blood was ever spilt in any of the places Eddie was directed to, apart from on McCann property?
I have no idea how these dogs do what they do. Can you tell me why the two dogs who indicated that there was something in the loft of Tia Sharp's grandmother didn't indicate all over her house?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:24:38 PM
I have no idea how these dogs do what they do. Can you tell me why the two dogs who indicated that there was something in the loft of Tia Sharp's grandmother didn't indicate all over her house?
They also missed the girl under the bed and reacted to furniture from a house removal where the resident had died.
So complicated.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 10:26:36 PM
I didn't say always where he directs them, only that be has some control over whether or not they do alert. They ma not sleet where he does not encourage him, but are more likely to alert where he is obviously interested.
...........but if he knows that samples need to be retrieved in order to produce evidence to confirm the alert, what would be the point in such alleged "control ?"
How would he know whereabouts to allegedly "encourage " in order to follow up the alert by deploying the CSI dog?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 10:27:06 PM
I have no idea how these dogs do what they do. Can you tell me why the two dogs who indicated that there was something in the loft of Tia Sharp's grandmother didn't indicate all over her house?
Nope, I can't.
Nor can I explain why Eddie alerted to blood on a tissue, but in the McCann case failed to detect any blood anywhere else apart from on McCann property, you have to admit it's rather baffling.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:30:09 PM
...........but if he knows that samples need to be retrieved in order to produce evidence to confirm the alert, what would be the point in such alleged "control ?"
How would he know whereabouts to allegedly "encourage " in order to follow up the alert by deploying the CSI dog?
He wouldn't necessarily 'know'. Cueing can be quite unconscious. If he knew the suspects' car of apartment be might be more likely to exhibit unconscious tells when in those places
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 03, 2015, 10:34:07 PM
Nor can I explain why Eddie alerted to blood on a tissue, but in the McCann case failed to detect any blood anywhere else apart from on McCann property, you have to admit it's rather baffling.
I'm not at all baffled. I trust those who work with these dogs and they trust their dogs to do what they ask of them. Dogs have done some wonderful things for people and more things are revealed every day. The latest is that they seem to be able to sniff out prostrate cancer, which is very hard to test for. If they can do things like that I don't care how they do it, I'm just pleased that they can.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 10:35:50 PM
I'm not at all baffled. I trust those who work with these dogs and they trust their dogs to do what they ask of them. Dogs have done some wonderful things for people and more things are revealed every day. The latest is that they seem to be able to sniff out prostrate cancer, which is very hard to test for. If they can do things like that I don't care how they do it, I'm just pleased that they can.
So you have unquestioning belief in the dogs' (and their handlers) abilities, well sorry but not all of us do.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:36:14 PM
I'm not at all baffled. I trust those who work with these dogs and they trust their dogs to do what they ask of them. Dogs have done some wonderful things for people and more things are revealed every day. The latest is that they seem to be able to sniff out prostrate cancer, which is very hard to test for. If they can do things like that I don't care how they do it, I'm just pleased that they can.
As I have repeatedly said, testimonials do not outweigh scientific evidence of uncertainty.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 03, 2015, 10:39:01 PM
He wouldn't necessarily 'know'. Cueing can be quite unconscious. If he knew the suspects' car of apartment be might be more likely to exhibit unconscious tells when in those places
..............except when he doesn`t "exhibit unconscious tells"...........e.g. in a McCann bathroom or a boys t-shirt or a weaker sort of " unconscious tell " as per flower bed.
All possibilities covered, then.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:44:00 PM
..............except when he doesn`t "exhibit unconscious tells"...........e.g. in a McCann bathroom or a boys t-shirt or a weaker sort of " unconscious tell " as per flower bed.
All possibilities covered, then.
Pretty unpredictable and not evidential.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 03, 2015, 10:48:26 PM
I'm not at all baffled. I trust those who work with these dogs and they trust their dogs to do what they ask of them. Dogs have done some wonderful things for people and more things are revealed every day. The latest is that they seem to be able to sniff out prostrate cancer, which is very hard to test for. If they can do things like that I don't care how they do it, I'm just pleased that they can.
He " directed" Eddie to and around a bathroom and other areas............no alert.
Eddie finds the source of the strongest scent. He goes in first to find cadaver scent. Keela has to get in real close with her nose to detect any microscopic blood in those alerted areas. We have Grime's opinion about Eddie's alerts - they all were for cadaver not blood and he knows more about his dog, behaviour and training than any of us.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 11:29:45 PM
Eddie finds the source of the strongest scent. He goes in first to find cadaver scent. Keela has to get in real close with her nose to detect any microscopic blood in those alerted areas. We have Grime's opinion about Eddie's alerts - they all were for cadaver not blood and he knows more about his dog, behaviour and training than any of us.
Are they your opinions or do you have a cite?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 03, 2015, 11:47:00 PM
Eddie finds the source of the strongest scent. He goes in first to find cadaver scent. Keela has to get in real close with her nose to detect any microscopic blood in those alerted areas. We have Grime's opinion about Eddie's alerts - they all were for cadaver not blood and he knows more about his dog, behaviour and training than any of us.
What forensic evidence was found? Because without corroborating evidence alerts are totally meaningless.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 12:30:47 AM
The evidence is on video. Eddie found the scent and was chasing it with his head in the air past the car. Was he barking? No he wasn't until he found the source of the scent emitting from the door seal and then he gave his positive bark alert. Keela gets in real close to locate any blood. The EVRD alert indications suggest cadaver is Grime's professional opinion in his report.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 04, 2015, 12:44:02 AM
The evidence is on video. Eddie found the scent and was chasing it with his head in the air past the car. Was he barking? No he wasn't until he found the source of the scent emitting from the door seal and then he gave his positive bark alert. Keela gets in real close to locate any blood. The EVRD alert indications suggest cadaver is Grime's professional opinion in his report.
Why do you suppose Eddie didn't indicate the deposits in the r/o/s boot of the Scenic? If you take the key out of the equation, Keela wouldn't have gone inside the car. Did Eddie miss deposits in any of the other vehicles?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 01:12:59 AM
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 07:30:10 AM
He wouldn't necessarily 'know'. Cueing can be quite unconscious. If he knew the suspects' car of apartment be might be more likely to exhibit unconscious tells when in those places
He didn't need the dogs then he could do it on his own lol. He cued them behind the couch; blood behind the couch. He cued the car; blood in the car. That's believable. Another professional being doubted because of this case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 07:56:11 AM
He didn't need the dogs then he could do it on his own lol. He cued them behind the couch; blood behind the couch. He cued the car; blood in the car. That's believable. Another professional being doubted because of this case.
Unconscious cueing is a scientific fact.
Get over it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 08:02:32 AM
You are still accusing a professional policeman and dog trainer of not doing his job properly. You have no evidence for the accusation. I wonder why you're so keen to discredit him?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 04, 2015, 08:05:27 AM
Why did Grime wear the protective overalls of his trade for only one inspection, the inspection of the vehicles, the video of which he was handed possession of, so he could later use it to promote himself when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 08:13:31 AM
You are still accusing a professional policeman and dog trainer of not doing his job properly. You have no evidence for the accusation. I wonder why you're so keen to discredit him?
I have every right to suggest that he might be open to human foibles proved by science.
And he called Eddie back to the McCann's car seven times and the other twice and then claimed that he did not know which was the McCann's car at the time despite it being the only one plastered with posters.
And his random approach to which dogs be used where.
Among many other alarm bells in his speech and behaviour.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 08:15:13 AM
Why did Grime wear the protective overalls of his trade for only one inspection, the inspection of the vehicles, the video of which he was handed possession of, so he could later use it to promote himself when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?
Meaningless? The dogs alerted to the key. There was blood on the key. How is that meaningless? The dogs did what was required of them. It added nothing evidential to the case, but that's another matter.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 08:28:26 AM
Meaningless? The dogs alerted to the key. There was blood on the key. How is that meaningless? The dogs did what was required of them. It added nothing evidential to the case, but that's another matter.
Of course dogs are right some of the time. Best estimate is about 80% in vivo.
The problem is that dogs are also fallible and we have no way of telling accurate from inaccurate when here is no confirming forensics.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2015, 08:48:55 AM
Meaningless? The dogs alerted to the key. There was blood on the key. How is that meaningless? The dogs did what was required of them. It added nothing evidential to the case, but that's another matter.
Just as they added nothing evidential to the case of Haut de la Garenne ~ but taken in conjunction with Praia da Luz may be considered to have brought disrepute on the investigation by the way in which their role was publicised and promoted.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2015, 08:52:07 AM
You are still accusing a professional policeman and dog trainer of not doing his job properly. You have no evidence for the accusation. I wonder why you're so keen to discredit him?
The dogs provided absolutely no evidence which could be used in a court of law ~ kangaroo courts don't count ~ in what way is stating that discrediting the handler?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 08:55:20 AM
Of course dogs are right some of the time. Best estimate is about 80% in vivo.
The problem is that dogs are also fallible and we have no way of telling accurate from inaccurate when here is no confirming forensics.
The fallibility of the dogs isn't a problem for me. Two dogs trained and handled by the same person. One dog did it's job and found forensic evidence. The assumption that the other dog was wrong is just an assumption, nothing else.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 04, 2015, 08:56:56 AM
The dogs provided absolutely no evidence which could be used in a court of law ~ kangaroo courts don't count ~ in what way is stating that discrediting the handler?
That's the problem, this is a discussion forum, the supporters seem to think it is a trial and resort to arguments that are only really applicable in a court of law. That doesn't really contribute to enlightenment just stifle the debate.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 09:01:48 AM
That's the problem, this is a discussion forum, the supporters seem to think it is a trial and resort to arguments that are only really applicable in a court of law. That doesn't really contribute to enlightenment just stifle the debate.
What you call enlightenment others would call delusion.
Enlightenment as you describe it ignores facts including scientific facts.
For debate read gossip.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 09:04:41 AM
The dogs provided absolutely no evidence which could be used in a court of law ~ kangaroo courts don't count ~ in what way is stating that discrediting the handler?
Please read the posts criticising the trainer/handler to which I was replying.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 09:55:08 AM
Back on topic.
Copied from another thread:
Grime states that although Keela alerts very specifically to a small area where blood is found, Eddie was trained to alert to the general odour of death in a wider area. This is normal for rescue dogs as they are trained to follow an odour gradient.
The clothes were bundled together and we know that odour transfers from item to item in close proximity.
The 'couple' of alerts are to 5a and to clothes. The clothes had also been in 5a so a single source could have existed.
It is worth remembering that the scientifically determined best estimate for scent dogs is of the order of 80%. Statistically this error rate is increased for tests that require two alerts, the uncertainty increases by the multiple of each individual test, leading to a joint Eddie/Keela alert is 80% of 80%, or 64%. So each of those alerts has a two out of three possibility of being true or more importantly a one on three chance of being wrong.
So we have moved from a contention that there were multiple alerts indicating cadaver odour to the possibility that it was actually a single source detected with an chance of one in three being totally incorrect.
That is the truth value of the dogs.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2015, 10:13:34 AM
Do we know if any of the police who handled the clothes...who searched 5a or who drove the car had had contact with a cadaver. As Grime pointed out...the alerts could have been due to contamination
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: lordpookles on May 04, 2015, 10:17:16 AM
^ And when you consider the history of other officers involved in this case anything becomes possible. I'm as suspicious of the McCanns as the next person but one should really keep an open mind.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: John on May 04, 2015, 10:18:23 AM
Do we know if any of the police who handled the clothes...who searched 5a or who drove the car had had contact with a cadaver. As Grime pointed out...the alerts could have been due to contamination
There is no doubt that Eddie's alerts in 5a were compelling but as to what they actually represented is another question.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2015, 10:24:10 AM
That's the problem, this is a discussion forum, the supporters seem to think it is a trial and resort to arguments that are only really applicable in a court of law. That doesn't really contribute to enlightenment just stifle the debate.
There are those who apparently are averse to enlightenment in any form whatsoever if it entails truth rather than innuendo.
If you wish to discuss lies, fable and myth I suggest you may be on the wrong forum for that. This one relies on more than mantras such as "Dogs Don't Lie" rather than dogs being an investigative tool which cannot provide evidence of wrongdoing without corroboration.
Information derived from scientific studies has been given ad nauseam as to the capabilities of working dogs, perhaps you should avail yourself of following one or two which might lead you to forming a more rounded opinion on the subject.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 10:29:53 AM
Do we know if any of the police who handled the clothes...who searched 5a or who drove the car had had contact with a cadaver. As Grime pointed out...the alerts could have been due to contamination
It is really worth looking at the video of the dogs and clothes. The clothes had been gathered up and put into large boxes, not individually bagged. They were thrown on the floor in a public room onto the floor that had not been covered with clean paper.
Every chance of multiple cross contamination.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 11:07:09 AM
He didn't need the dogs then he could do it on his own lol. He cued them behind the couch; blood behind the couch. He cued the car; blood in the car. That's believable. Another professional being doubted because of this case.
Did you get a chance to read this? If so, what's your view?
That's the problem, this is a discussion forum, the supporters seem to think it is a trial and resort to arguments that are only really applicable in a court of law. That doesn't really contribute to enlightenment just stifle the debate.
What would be truly enlightened is if dog fans acknowledged that these creatures and their handlers are not supernatural brings and do make mistakes, as this research clearly shows http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 11:39:10 AM
I find it enlightening that some people spend time trawling the internet for 'proof' on the 'notorious unreliability' of dogs used in various scenarios. why is it so important to discredit the usefulness of these dogs? I find that most significant.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 11:44:52 AM
Grime states that although Keela alerts very specifically to a small area where blood is found, Eddie was trained to alert to the general odour of death in a wider area. This is normal for rescue dogs as they are trained to follow an odour gradient.
The clothes were bundled together and we know that odour transfers from item to item in close proximity.
The 'couple' of alerts are to 5a and to clothes. The clothes had also been in 5a so a single source could have existed.
It is worth remembering that the scientifically determined best estimate for scent dogs is of the order of 80%. Statistically this error rate is increased for tests that require two alerts, the uncertainty increases by the multiple of each individual test, leading to a joint Eddie/Keela alert is 80% of 80%, or 64%. So each of those alerts has a two out of three possibility of being true or more importantly a one on three chance of being wrong.
So we have moved from a contention that there were multiple alerts indicating cadaver odour to the possibility that it was actually a single source detected with an chance of one in three being totally incorrect.
That is the truth value of the dogs.
Irrelevant general dog statistics. I thought you were going to say that Eddie was EVRD and was highly skilled with special training techniques. Where forensics find nothing Eddie or Keela do!
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.
She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles.
STU MACHINE
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 Scent Transference Unit. Operational use of the STU is in a developmental and evaluative stage used in conjunction with selective FBI casework. The unis is 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 STU 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 STU 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 STU 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 STU is considered 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.
Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
Sandra: Unreliable?
Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically."
They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin. The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain. Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 11:45:22 AM
I find it enlightening that some people spend time trawling the internet for 'proof' on the 'notorious unreliability' of dogs used in various scenarios. why is it so important to discredit the usefulness of these dogs? I find that most significant.
Because that is how forensic science works.
You start with an unknown and work towards facts.
Science shows that dogs do not indicate facts but possibilities of facts.
The important question is why some people are so desperate to say that the dogs produce facts rather than intelligence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 11:46:41 AM
I find it enlightening that some people spend time trawling the internet for 'proof' on the 'notorious unreliability' of dogs used in various scenarios. why is it so important to discredit the usefulness of these dogs? I find that most significant.
So did you read the article or not? It wasn't written or funded by disciples of the McCanns so interested to know your views on this objective piece of research. Do you accept it or not? If not, why not?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 11:47:30 AM
Irrelevant general dog statistics. I thought you were going to say that Eddie was EVRD and was highly skilled with special training techniques. Where forensics find nothing Eddie or Keela do!
'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.
She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles.
STU MACHINE
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 Scent Transference Unit. Operational use of the STU is in a developmental and evaluative stage used in conjunction with selective FBI casework. The unis is 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 STU 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 STU 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 STU 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 STU is considered 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.
Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.
Sandra: Unreliable?
Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically."
They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin. The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain. Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found. 8@??)(
Generally meaningless verbiage.
All scent dogs are fallible to a certain extent.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 11:54:28 AM
You better go get your EVRD statistics then if you're posting crap about Eddie in this case.
"EVRD dogs" re a creation of Grime's and a few others. There are no reliable statistics on their accuracy. The best estimate is that they are as accurate as any other scent dog - about 80%.
The "Enhanced" does not mean more a curate. VRD dogs are trained to find remains in open country, often after disasters. The so called "Enhanced" dogs are trained to detect trace amounts of decomposed bodies in buildings as well as in the open.
EVRD's are generally not scientifically verified by independent research.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 04, 2015, 12:29:05 PM
"EVRD dogs" re a creation of Grime's and a few others. There are no reliable statistics on their accuracy. The best estimate is that they are as accurate as any other scent dog - about 80%.
The "Enhanced" does not mean more a curate. VRD dogs are trained to find remains in open country, often after disasters. The so called "Enhanced" dogs are trained to detect trace amounts of decomposed bodies in buildings as well as in the open.
EVRD's are generally not scientifically verified by independent research.
All In Your not so Humble Opinion of course.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 12:36:05 PM
It is difficult to not appear condescending when faced with battalions of ignorance.
Keela's alerts did not produce facts. Facts were known when the forensic results were returned. Many places Keela alerted did not produce evidence.
Dogs indicate, forensics produce facts.
Well do try. Being condescending doesn't verify your arguments, it detracts from them as it's such a well known tactic. Wordplay is also counter-productive.
Keela alerted behind the couch and in the car. Samples were taken from these places. Analysis of these samples produced DNA. DNA is a fact. Without Keela's alerts the DNA wouldn't have been found, so the 'factual' forensic results wouldn't have been produced. You can't exclude Keela's alerts from the process. Please tell me where Keela alerted in vain?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 12:44:20 PM
Well do try. Being condescending doesn't verify your arguments, it detracts from them as it's such a well known tactic. Wordplay is also counter-productive.
Keela alerted behind the couch and in the car. Samples were taken from these places. Analysis of these samples produced DNA. DNA is a fact. Without Keela's alerts the DNA wouldn't have been found, so the 'factual' forensic results wouldn't have been produced. You can't exclude Keela's alerts from the process. Please tell me where Keela alerted in vain?
How I use English is up to me. I am not here to impress or make friends. I am here to defend truth and justice.
Read the files. Keela reacted in several places were no forensics were found.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 04, 2015, 12:45:00 PM
You seem to be doing "an Eric Von Daniken" there old stick.
No. Exactly the opposite.
Von Denizen made outlandish claims about what is the case and demanded people disprove his theories.
It is not possible to do this
My contentions are negative
There are no known statistics on EVRDs
EVRD is largely undefined save by the handlers
Enhanced does not mean more accurate.
If those are incorrect it is easy to produce evidence to counter them-
Produce research, Produce definition of EVRD, Produce evidence of what enhanced actually means.
Von Denizen's method was the opposite- claim positive knowledge with no testability.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 04, 2015, 01:07:16 PM
I have posted many times that if you look at fingerprints or Dna there are literally hundreds of thousands of scientific articles looking at their reliability. that's why they can be used in evidence in court...they are supported by evidence. What evidence is their to support the reliability of EVRDs...basically none.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2015, 01:09:51 PM
Enhanced VRD was a term dreamed up to explain how a Victim Recovery Dog could suddenly isolate just Cadaver Odour and alert only to that. Unfortunately it wasn't possible to stop Eddie reacting to Blood.
You might be able to teach old dogs new tricks, but you can't teach them to forget old ones.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2015, 01:13:31 PM
It is really worth looking at the video of the dogs and clothes. The clothes had been gathered up and put into large boxes, not individually bagged. They were thrown on the floor in a public room onto the floor that had not been covered with clean paper.
Every chance of multiple cross contamination.
There is also the fact discussed in great detail on another doggy thread on the forum that prior to being moved to two other locations ~ one which was not 'clean enough' for the dogs, and the sports centre ~ the clothing was present in the villa where Eddie played with cuddle cat ... and was not alerted to.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 01:19:53 PM
How I use English is up to me. I am not here to impress or make friends. I am here to defend truth and justice.
Read the files. Keela reacted in several places were no forensics were found.
It is indeed up to you how you use English, and the way you have begun to use it guarantees that you won't impress or make friends imo, so you're achieving that objective. Defending truth and justice is a laudable aim. Just depends if we all agree with your definitions, however. If you refuse provide a link to uphold your statements then I'm entitled to assume you can't.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 01:22:46 PM
It is indeed up to you how you use English, and the way you have begun to use it guarantees that you won't impress or make friends imo, so you're achieving that objective. Defending truth and justice is a laudable aim. Just depends if we all agree with your definitions, however. If you refuse provide a link to uphold your statements then I'm entitled to assume you can't.
Which statements have I made that require a cite?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 02:40:20 PM
"EVRD dogs" re a creation of Grime's and a few others. There are no reliable statistics on their accuracy. The best estimate is that they are as accurate as any other scent dog - about 80%.
The "Enhanced" does not mean more a curate. VRD dogs are trained to find remains in open country, often after disasters. The so called "Enhanced" dogs are trained to detect trace amounts of decomposed bodies in buildings as well as in the open.
EVRD's are generally not scientifically verified by independent research.
And some dogs like Eddie have had a lot more specialised training and experience and are better at their job and that's a fact.
Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required. (MG)
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies. (TOTL)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2015, 02:48:22 PM
Sorry. I don't believe that either of the dogs were taken to America before The McCann Case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 02:57:59 PM
And some dogs like Eddie have had a lot more specialised training and experience and are better at their job and that's a fact.
Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required. (MG)
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies. (TOTL)
That is advertising blurb, not scientific fact. He wanted to make money out of them and needed a USP.
He was hardly lonely to advertise them as mediocre and unreliable.
I'll bet you believe Irn Bru is made in Scotland from girders and Heineken is the best beer in the world.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 04, 2015, 03:18:36 PM
And some dogs like Eddie have had a lot more specialised training and experience and are better at their job and that's a fact.
Both dogs and I are licensed as two separate working teams. We are independently tested and licensed annually, normally at six monthly intervals as a 'rolling' programme to ensure best practice is maintained. They are tested to units of assessment prepared as a stand-alone system as these dogs are unique. Training records are maintained and are available if required. (MG)
The dogs' CV is impressive. Besides collaborating in hundreds of investigations, they passed the practical tests brilliantly at the FBI's "Body Farm," the only place in the world where human cadavers are used to simulate homicide scenarios and concealment of bodies. (TOTL)
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 dogGrime 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'.
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 dogGrime 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'.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles)
A Discount on 97,000 Pounds? Good Heavens. What would it have cost without The Discount, to find nothing?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 03:25:30 PM
Do you think the Welsh ones came much cheaper? They didn't find anything either, as I recall.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 03:32:17 PM
So did you read the article or not? It wasn't written or funded by disciples of the McCanns so interested to know your views on this objective piece of research. Do you accept it or not? If not, why not?
I guess you've chosen to ignore me G-Unit, correct?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 03:35:33 PM
PC John Ellis, her handler, said that police sent for Keela when the scenes of crime squad failed to find what they were looking for. "She can detect minute quantities of blood that cannot be seen with the human eye," he said. "She is used at scenes where someone has tried to clean it up. If blood has seeped into the tiles behind a bath where a body has been, she can find it."
Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela's remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. "The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don't have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit," Mr Ellis said.
Paul Ruffell, of K9 Solutions, a security firm specialising in dog units, said he was amazed at Keela's abilities. "I've been working in this business for 25 years and I've never heard anything like it," he said.
ANIMAL MAGIC
£200,000 DOG
Keela crime scene investigation dog, South Yorkshire Police
Pay none. Charges £530 a day plus expenses for services. Earned almost £200,000 last year.
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: DCI on May 04, 2015, 03:36:34 PM
PC John Ellis, her handler, said that police sent for Keela when the scenes of crime squad failed to find what they were looking for. "She can detect minute quantities of blood that cannot be seen with the human eye," he said. "She is used at scenes where someone has tried to clean it up. If blood has seeped into the tiles behind a bath where a body has been, she can find it."
Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela's remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. "The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don't have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit," Mr Ellis said.
Paul Ruffell, of K9 Solutions, a security firm specialising in dog units, said he was amazed at Keela's abilities. "I've been working in this business for 25 years and I've never heard anything like it," he said.
ANIMAL MAGIC
£200,000 DOG
Keela crime scene investigation dog, South Yorkshire Police
Pay none. Charges £530 a day plus expenses for services. Earned almost £200,000 last year.
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html
So are you telling me that two British Police Dogs were allowed to go to America and train in a way that is forbidden in UK?
I don't think so somehow.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 03:43:55 PM
PC John Ellis, her handler, said that police sent for Keela when the scenes of crime squad failed to find what they were looking for. "She can detect minute quantities of blood that cannot be seen with the human eye," he said. "She is used at scenes where someone has tried to clean it up. If blood has seeped into the tiles behind a bath where a body has been, she can find it."
Mr Ellis and Mr Grimes came up with a special training regime to focus on Keela's remarkable skills. It has proved so successful that the FBI has inquired about it. "The FBI is very interested in how we work because they don't have this sort of facility in-house and they are looking at setting up their own unit," Mr Ellis said.
Paul Ruffell, of K9 Solutions, a security firm specialising in dog units, said he was amazed at Keela's abilities. "I've been working in this business for 25 years and I've never heard anything like it," he said.
ANIMAL MAGIC
£200,000 DOG
Keela crime scene investigation dog, South Yorkshire Police
Pay none. Charges £530 a day plus expenses for services. Earned almost £200,000 last year.
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html
So, you are citing the Sun to back up your claims? Then we can both agree that the Sun is an acceptable source of information, and that Amaral is indeed a monster. Glad that's sorted then!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: DCI on May 04, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
So are you telling me that two British Police Dogs were allowed to go to America and train in a way that is forbidden in UK?
I don't think so somehow.
Before release of his main report, John Lowe of the Forensic Science Service wrote a long email to Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police about a particular result from the boot of the McCanns’ hire car, where some markers from a mixed DNA sample were the same as markers from the control DNA profile of Madeleine. 6 words from that email are key: “too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion”. In his main report, Lowe summarises that result without mention of Madeleine by name, repeating: “too complex for meaningful interpretation”. No contradiction at all.
I shan’t name and shame, but I have actually debated with people that think what was too complex for John Lowe, a forensic expert, to interpret could nevertheless be interpreted by a judge, or even a jury. The forum myth is one some people are loath to let go of. Certain claims of Martin Grime in his profile raise an eyebrow.
As a full-time Police Constable with South Yorkshire Police (SYP) (the most junior rank of serving officer in the British Police Force), he claims to have been also an advisor to the FBI and the US Department of justice. He claims to have been instrumental in training programmes in the US, and to have introduced swine cadavers/cadaver scent into training in the States. In some States of America, as everywhere in Britain, use of human cadaver or human cadaver scents is not acceptable, and in those States, as in Britain, swine cadavers are used to train dogs. It is surprising that Martin Grime should have taught the Americans anything new about that.
Grime claims that in a 6 year period in Britain, Eddie was deployed over 200 times. This disclosure under Freedom of Information (FOI) indicates just 37 deployments in the 5 year period 2003-2007. Either Eddie must have had one very busy year or Grime has got his sums wrong.
Some States in America use human cadavers to train cadaver dogs on what are known as ‘body farms’. Grime claims that Eddie has been trained on such a farm in the States. An FOI answer to a question I have submitted cited parts of a Personal Development review for the Year 2005-6 when it was stated that Eddie (then aged 5 or 6, and close to retirement) had been to the States for that training. The cited justification was, not that it would improve Eddie’s performance, but that it would “generate some income potential”.
Until his last day of service, the daily cost of hiring Eddie was just £10. And no documention confirming this apparent trip was ever received by SYP.
Still, Grime describes both Eddie and Keela as the only “assets” (as he describes them) of their type in the world. Clearly Eddie’s apparent training on a body farm in America wouldn’t make him that, because many dogs in America are trained the same, so what would? Whatever it is, perhaps that is why there are no references to the “Enhanced” Victim Recovery dog status outside Eddie and Grime?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 04, 2015, 04:35:42 PM
Only if people continue to insist that they did go to the US.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 05:43:50 PM
Specialized K-9 to Aid in Ga. Search todaysthv.com
Monika Rued Updated: 9/14/2007 11:19:53 AM
A dog trained to detect tiny bits of blood evidence has been brought to Georgia from the UK to help search for a missing woman.
The FBI, the GBI and Walker County, Georgia, Sheriff's investigators have some new and potentially powerful help in solving the seemingly unsolvable disappearance of Theresa Parker, the Walker County 911 dispatcher. A world-renowned police dog and his handler from England just arrived in Georgia.
The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement specialty of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed.
Sniffer dog used in search for Madeleine McCann found missing Orkney man's body Daily Record
Feb 17 2010
A SNIFFER dog used in the search for missing Madeleine McCann found a man buried in sand dunes in Orkney, a court heard yesterday.
FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow he and his springer spaniels Eddie, Keela and Morse were called in by police in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on the island of Sanday last June.
Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies and was used in the McCann case and the Soham murders inquiry, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24.
Mr Grime said: "His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig."
The body of "Black Bob" Rose was later found at the spot.
Comprehensive Characterization of Commercially Available Canine Training Aids, Christopher A. Tipple, Patricia T. Caldwell, Brian M. Kile, Douglas J. Beussman, Blake Rushing, Natalie J. Mitchell, Christian J. Whitchurch, Martin Grime, Rex Stockham, Brian A. Eckenrode; Forensic Science International, 2014, September, Vol 242, pp 242–254. E-published 7/5/2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.06.033
Specialized K-9 to Aid in Ga. Search todaysthv.com
Monika Rued Updated: 9/14/2007 11:19:53 AM
A dog trained to detect tiny bits of blood evidence has been brought to Georgia from the UK to help search for a missing woman.
The FBI, the GBI and Walker County, Georgia, Sheriff's investigators have some new and potentially powerful help in solving the seemingly unsolvable disappearance of Theresa Parker, the Walker County 911 dispatcher. A world-renowned police dog and his handler from England just arrived in Georgia.
The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement specialty of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed.
Sniffer dog used in search for Madeleine McCann found missing Orkney man's body Daily Record
Feb 17 2010
A SNIFFER dog used in the search for missing Madeleine McCann found a man buried in sand dunes in Orkney, a court heard yesterday.
FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow he and his springer spaniels Eddie, Keela and Morse were called in by police in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on the island of Sanday last June.
Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies and was used in the McCann case and the Soham murders inquiry, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24.
Mr Grime said: "His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig."
The body of "Black Bob" Rose was later found at the spot.
Comprehensive Characterization of Commercially Available Canine Training Aids, Christopher A. Tipple, Patricia T. Caldwell, Brian M. Kile, Douglas J. Beussman, Blake Rushing, Natalie J. Mitchell, Christian J. Whitchurch, Martin Grime, Rex Stockham, Brian A. Eckenrode; Forensic Science International, 2014, September, Vol 242, pp 242–254. E-published 7/5/2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.06.033
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 05:58:53 PM
An expert here says that EVRDs cannot distinguish between dead pig and dead humans because their odour is so similar.
"When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future."
So the assertion that Eddie does not react to pig flesh is false.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 04, 2015, 06:16:09 PM
An expert here says that EVRDs cannot distinguish between dead pig and dead humans because their odour is so similar.
"When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future."
So the assertion that Eddie does not react to pig flesh is false.
Has anyone asserted this on this thread?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 06:20:18 PM
On a permanent state of alert, is Eddie.......what with blood of all ages and stages of decomposition and pig flesh..........non-stop head- in- the -air and woofing.
Or is it only if the handler suspects, consciously or unconsciously that one or both may be present and directs him to alert?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 04, 2015, 06:20:59 PM
On a permanent state of alert, is Eddie.......what with blood of all ages and stages of decomposition and pig flesh..........non-stop head- in- the -air and woofing.
Or is it only if the handler suspects, consciously or unconsciously that one or both may be present and directs him to alert?
Gosh, that's a bold admission! You've obviously read the link in my signature line...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 06:25:49 PM
The amount of effort that goes into rubbishing these dogs is amazing when you consider that their finding are reputed to be of no consequence @)(++(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 06:29:11 PM
The amount of effort that goes into rubbishing these dogs is amazing when you consider that their finding are reputed to be of no consequence @)(++(*
If "sceptics" accepted that dogs alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence and that handler bias can effect their performance there would be no need for these discussions at all.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 06:36:59 PM
The amount of effort that goes into rubbishing these dogs is amazing when you consider that their finding are reputed to be of no consequence @)(++(*
The amount of effort put into pretending that they are infallible or provide serious evidence has been amazing considering the facts derived from scientific experiments deny all those claims.
With dog alerts and the DNA shown to be unscientific myth, Amaral's hypothesis falls and there is absolutely no indication that the McCanns were guilty of anything. Much as the AG decided n behalf of the Portuguese Justice system all those years ago.
Dogs are fallible The DNA evidence was completely misinterpreted The McCanns are innocent.
All that is left are bands of people getting their rocks off on perceived human misery.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 06:41:39 PM
If "sceptics" accepted that dogs alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence and that handler bias can effect their performance there would be no need for these discussions at all.
And so you have to beaver on. Must be so galling to realise that it has such little effect.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 06:43:16 PM
The amount of effort put into pretending that they are infallible or provide serious evidence has been amazing considering the facts derived from scientific experiments deny all those claims.
With dog alerts and the DNA shown to be unscientific myth, Amaral's hypothesis falls and there is absolutely no indication that the McCanns were guilty of anything. Much as the AG decided n behalf of the Portuguese Justice system all those years ago.
Dogs are fallible The DNA evidence was completely misinterpreted The McCanns are innocent.
All that is left are bands of people getting their rocks off on perceived human misery.
Just another believer then.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 06:44:51 PM
The amount of effort put into pretending that they are infallible or provide serious evidence has been amazing considering the facts derived from scientific experiments deny all those claims.
With dog alerts and the DNA shown to be unscientific myth, Amaral's hypothesis falls and there is absolutely no indication that the McCanns were guilty of anything. Much as the AG decided n behalf of the Portuguese Justice system all those years ago.
Dogs are fallible The DNA evidence was completely misinterpreted The McCanns are innocent.
All that is left are bands of people getting their rocks off on perceived human misery.
That about covers it on here I guess. Apart from slinging insults etc. One presumes you must believe your input here will have a significant impact on the behaviour of folk otherwise you would not be doing it ? Your targeted "market" is not exactly extensive.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 06:52:35 PM
There is extensive psychological research on the triumph of belief over reality.
One of the interesting findings is that people with fixed beliefs are usually actually confirmed in them by rational argument.
Yes, I've seen this for myself on here and also on a Creationist site I used to visit. The more you argue with them, the more logic and rationale you present, the more irrefutable evidence you link to, the more entrenched in their views they become. Bizarre!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 07:00:15 PM
SY have told you they're significant spending millions searching for evidence of a body. They wouldn't be searching for a body if Eddie didn't alert. I wonder when new forensics are happening &%+((£
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 07:04:32 PM
SY have told you they're significant spending millions searching for evidence of a body. They wouldn't be searching for a body if Eddie didn't alert. I wonder when new forensics are happening &%+((£
When did SY say they were searching for a body? When did they say they were doing it to the exclusion of every other avenue.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 07:07:52 PM
When did SY say they were searching for a body? When did they say they were doing it to the exclusion of every other avenue.
They haven't said it but their own actions prove they are searching for a body. When you see them chasing any sightings around the world please let me know.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 07:12:00 PM
Yes, I've seen this for myself on here and also on a Creationist site I used to visit. The more you argue with them, the more logic and rationale you present, the more irrefutable evidence you link to, the more entrenched in their views they become. Bizarre!
There is an excellent book written by a psychologist who joined a millennial cult in order to do participant observation. The main point of interest was that despite repeated dates identified by the cult leader for the rapture, and such dates being regularly disappointing, the more this happened, the stronger the belief became because they had too much ego identity invested in the belief system and the cost of changing ones mind was almost equivalent to loss of life. So they kept believing beyond rationality.
This case has never had enough evidence to plump for any explanation. Amaral was wrong and the AG was right.
All we are left with is true believers with too much to lose if hey admit their error. The brightest and most moral of the McCann [ censored word ]s have quietly slipped away and regained their lives while the true fanatics have gone to twitter.
Fascinating.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 07:12:19 PM
Holes and dogs certainly sounds a bit like a body search scenario.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 07:13:32 PM
They haven't said it but their own actions prove they are searching for a body. When you see them chasing any sightings around the world please let me know.
In your ever so humble opinion. Latest suggestion is that they are still following up abduction by people involved in various illegal events around that time.
We shall see.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 07:17:17 PM
In your ever so humble opinion. Latest suggestion is that they are still following up abduction by people involved in various illegal events around that time.
We shall see.
Indeed we shall. Well, maybe.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 07:18:57 PM
There is an excellent book written by a psychologist who joined a millennial cult in order to do participant observation. The main point of interest was that despite repeated dates identified by the cult leader for the rapture, and such dates being regularly disappointing, the more this happened, the stronger the belief became because they had too much ego identity invested in the belief system and the cost of changing ones mind was almost equivalent to loss of life. So they kept believing beyond rationality.
This case has never had enough evidence to plump for any explanation. Amaral was wrong and the AG was right.
All we are left with is true believers with too much to lose if hey admit their error. The brightest and most moral of the McCann [ censored word ] have quietly slipped away and regained their lives while the true fanatics have gone to twitter.
Fascinating.
Funnily enough I made a comparison on this site shortly before you signed up between those End-Of-The-World cultists and the Amaral fanclub who had predicted his victory in the legal case. A resounding disappointment is not enough to dissuade them that they won't be proven right the next time - you have to admire their optimism!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 07:20:13 PM
They haven't said it but their own actions prove they are searching for a body. When you see them chasing any sightings around the world please let me know.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Met has definitive proof of Madeleine's death - what sort of proof do you imagine they have uncovered?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 07:24:41 PM
Try explaining why non-stop alerts do not "dog" every investigation and search at every site everywhere due to the widespread presence of contaminants previously mentioned?
It must be quite simple...........you have the research/ evidence at your fingertips.
Resorting to "triumph of belief over reality" head shaking doesn`t cut it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 07:25:59 PM
Try explaining why non-stop alerts do not "dog" every investigation and search at every site everywhere due to the widespread presence of contaminants previously mentioned?
It must be quite simple...........you have the research/ evidence at your fingertips.
Resorting to "triumph of belief over reality" head shaking doesn`t cut it.
You seem to be of the opinion that the Met has definitive proof of Madeleine's death - what sort of proof do you imagine they have uncovered?
If Eddie hadn't alerted this would be another missing child case but as soon as those dogs alerted the police will follow up on those leads. I don't know what proof they have found but they're looking for proof of Madeleine and believe it can be solved.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 07:44:03 PM
Yes, I've seen this for myself on here and also on a Creationist site I used to visit. The more you argue with them, the more logic and rationale you present, the more irrefutable evidence you link to, the more entrenched in their views they become. Bizarre!
Don`t despair !
Use your "irrefutable evidence" to explain points queried........
( Just a suggestion.)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2015, 07:55:03 PM
If Eddie hadn't alerted this would be another missing child case but as soon as those dogs alerted the police will follow up on those leads. I don't know what proof they have found but they're looking for proof of Madeleine and believe it can be solved.
Pathfinder, I am going to break this to you as gently as I can ... Eddie is dead.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 08:05:22 PM
There is an excellent book written by a psychologist who joined a millennial cult in order to do participant observation. The main point of interest was that despite repeated dates identified by the cult leader for the rapture, and such dates being regularly disappointing, the more this happened, the stronger the belief became because they had too much ego identity invested in the belief system and the cost of changing ones mind was almost equivalent to loss of life. So they kept believing beyond rationality.
This case has never had enough evidence to plump for any explanation. Amaral was wrong and the AG was right.
All we are left with is true believers with too much to lose if hey admit their error. The brightest and most moral of the McCann [ censored word ] have quietly slipped away and regained their lives while the true fanatics have gone to twitter.
Fascinating.
*tuts*
...........are generalised whine-fests about "McCann Censored Worders" considered to be "on topic", then?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 08:07:17 PM
I don't know for sure why dogs aren't permanently alerting all over the place but think you probably got it spot on when you said their handlers direct them to alert - that makes perfect sense, and shows direct influence from handler to dog, does it not?
Now, back to the research I linked to - what is your view of it?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 08:31:31 PM
If Eddie hadn't alerted this would be another missing child case but as soon as those dogs alerted the police will follow up on those leads. I don't know what proof they have found but they're looking for proof of Madeleine and believe it can be solved.
So, without an alert you would be of the view that Madeleine is still alive would you? Personally I don't believe they have discovered any proof that Madeleine is dead, but you go on believing the reverse if it makes you happy.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 04, 2015, 08:33:59 PM
So, without an alert you would be of the view that Madeleine is still alive would you? Personally I don't believe they have discovered any proof that Madeleine is dead, but you go on believing the reverse if it makes you happy.
I suppose they would need a body or body parts to be absolutely sure of that
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 04, 2015, 08:52:38 PM
Eddie's mortal status aside, the answer to the title of the opening post is, no!
The dog alerts were significant. Both dogs alerted behind the couch in the living room of G5A and to the car. Blood was found, meaning both dogs alerted correctly. Eddie alerted in other places. No blood was found by Keela. Although no hard evidence was found Eddie's alerts shouldn't be ignored because he may have been right.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 09:09:08 PM
So, without an alert you would be of the view that Madeleine is still alive would you? Personally I don't believe they have discovered any proof that Madeleine is dead, but you go on believing the reverse if it makes you happy.
Yes a very good chance of that with no dog alerts but the dogs are telling us somebody stole a dead child from the apartment &%+((£
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 09:18:03 PM
I don't know for sure why dogs aren't permanently alerting all over the place but think you probably got it spot on when you said their handlers direct them to alert - that makes perfect sense, and shows direct influence from handler to dog, does it not?
Now, back to the research I linked to - what is your view of it?
I had hoped your and others` extensive research and links would be used to explain why the dogs are not permanently alerting all over the place........(.awww !)
After all...........it`s important to apply the research to the case in hand, isn`t it?............Otherwise it could be construed as attempts to bullshit in order to assume superiority to influence or control opinion , perhaps?
You provided the link ...........I expect you can apply it to the case ?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 04, 2015, 09:33:28 PM
I had hoped your and others` extensive research and links would be used to explain why the dogs are not permanently alerting all over the place........(.awww !)
After all...........it`s important to apply the research to the case in hand, isn`t it?............Otherwise it could be construed as attempts to bullshit in order to assume superiority to influence or control opinion , perhaps?
You provided the link ...........I expect you can apply it to the case ?
So can I take it you don't have anything to say about the research I provided a link to? Research which demonstrates how handler belief can effect the dog's performance? It raises a question mark over the reliability of dog alerts generally does it not? If you disagree perhaps you could explain why...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 09:42:22 PM
So can I take it you don't have anything to say about the research I provided a link to? Research which demonstrates how handler belief can effect the dog's performance? It raises a question mark over the reliability of dog alerts generally does it not? If you disagree perhaps you could explain why...
How about your applying your "generalised research" into to how the handler`s belief affected the dogs` performance in the specific case under discussion?
Go on.........run it past me............then I might have something relevant to the topic to say about it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 09:45:50 PM
How about your applying your "generalised research" into to how the handler`s belief affected the dogs` performance in the specific case under discussion?
Go on.........run it past me............then I might have something relevant to the topic to say about it.
oxfordBloo has already covered this. Grime knew which car and apartment pertained to the McCanns. He knew he was there to help find evidence against them. The research I have linked to makes it clear that conscious or unconscious handler bias can effect their dogs' performance, is it not possible that this is what happened on this occasion? Google also Zampo the sniffer dog who alerted multiple times in the case of the serial killer who never was - handlers were told where they might find human remains, the dog alerted to 45 separate locations, it subsequently turned out no bodies had ever been disposed of at those locations. Why did this happen do you think?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 09:54:07 PM
"Research" needs to be applied to the individual case in order for its relevance to be examined, questions answered and conclusions drawn .
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 10:01:04 PM
oxfordBloo has already covered this. Grime knew which car and apartment pertained to the McCanns. He knew he was there to help find evidence against them. The research I have linked to makes it clear that conscious or unconscious handler bias can effect their dogs' performance, is it not possible that this is what happened on this occasion? Google also Zampo the sniffer dog who alerted multiple times in the case of the serial killer who never was - handlers were told where they might find human remains, the dog alerted to 45 separate locations, it subsequently turned out no bodies had ever been disposed of at those locations. Why did this happen do you think?
Well, actually no............it wasn`t covered .
Links to generalised research accompanied by wordy bullshit doesn`t count, although it impresses some.
The queries were not addressed and generalised research into handler bias did not explain the specific alerts or non alerts and how they were achieved by "handler bias."
P.S.
You do realise that responding to your posts puts me at risk of accusations of WUMMING by Brietta and being called an "it" who should be ignored and treated with the contempt It deserves ?
I don`t want to attract such nastiness again.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 10:17:52 PM
Links to generalised research accompanied by wordy bullshit doesn`t count, although it impresses some.
The queries were not addressed and generalised research into handler bias did not explain the specific alerts or non alerts and how they were achieved by "handler bias."
P.S.
You do realise that responding to your posts puts me at risk of accusations of WUMMING by Brietta and being called an "it" who should be ignored and treated with the contempt It deserves ?
I don`t want to attract such nastiness again.
Your PS is of no interest to me, I have no idea what you're referring to.
Is it your view that it is quite impossible for conscious or unconscious handler bias to be a factor in Eddie's alerts? If so, why do you believe this?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 04, 2015, 10:24:33 PM
That is rubbish. Such research generalises to all scent dogs. There is nothing special about Eddie.
The fact that the research was conducted by someone who was interested in human communications and specifically told the handlers that each room may contain multiple scent sources, is not representative of normal working conditions.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 10:25:03 PM
The fact that the research was conducted by someone who was interested in human communications and specifically told the handlers that each room may contain multiple scent sources, is not representative of normal working conditions.
If you hire a sniffer dog and handler and take them to a location in an investigation then that is because you suspect that the location may reveal some evidence relevant to your investigation, yes?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 10:31:06 PM
Your PS is of no interest to me, I have no idea what you're referring to.
Is it your view that it is quite impossible for conscious or unconscious handler bias to be a factor in Eddie's alerts? If so, why do you believe this?
Ah right!.....It was this.........(I would understandably find it less easy to forget.)
Quote from: Brietta on Today at 07:57:38 PM
You have merely replaced me in this WUM affection, Alfred, it has one objective and imo that is to cause as much friction as possible ... it is really doing its best to disrupt the forum which is why I treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 10:34:59 PM
Ah right!.....It was this.........(I would understandably find it less easy to forget.)
Quote from: Brietta on Today at 07:57:38 PM
You have merely replaced me in this WUM affection, Alfred, it has one objective and imo that is to cause as much friction as possible ... it is really doing its best to disrupt the forum which is why I treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it.
Off topic.
Now back to this:
Is it your view that it is quite impossible for conscious or unconscious handler bias to be a factor in Eddie's alerts? If so, why do you believe this?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: sadie on May 04, 2015, 11:30:47 PM
Is it your view that it is quite impossible for conscious or unconscious handler bias to be a factor in Eddie's alerts? If so, why do you believe this?
There must be an awful lot of pressure to find evidence, on the shoulders of a man that is charging as much as Martin does.
He must want to please his new friends and employers. Maybe they convinced him that The Mccanns were guilty?
Is it possible that unconscious handler bias could have been caused by this pressure?
Because he sure got it wrong about Ccat in that cupboard.
And he sure called Eddie back so many times to the Mccanns car.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 04, 2015, 11:32:01 PM
It has turned into Crufts again I see. I suppose it should be expected it being an English site and all. On the whole it would be preferable were it North Korean in this particular instance. I will catch you next week to see who won best of breed.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 11:33:43 PM
It is for those who are citing research into "handler bias" to apply this "research" to the "on topic" case and show how each alert or non-alert was manipulated or affected by "handler bias".
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 11:35:15 PM
There must be an awful lot of pressure to find evidence, on the shoulders of a man that is charging as much as Martin does.
He must want to please his new friends and employers. Maybe they convinced him that The Mccanns were guilty?
Is it possible that unconscious handler bias could have been caused by this pressure?
Because he sure got it wrong about Ccat in that cupboard.
And he sure called Eddie back so many times to the Mccanns car.
These were English dogs so if you think the English wanted to nail the McCanns then you won't think much about the English taking over this case now and searching for a body because of the English dogs. Bloody English 8(>((
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 04, 2015, 11:38:20 PM
These were English dogs so if you think the English wanted to nail the McCanns then you won't think much about the English taking over this case now and searching for a body because of the English dogs. Bloody English 8(>((
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 11:39:06 PM
It is for those who are citing research into "handler bias" to apply this "research" to the "on topic" case and show how each alert or non-alert was manipulated or affected by "handler bias".
You do not understand science.
Information generalises as the nose and the relationship are the same for any scent dog.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: sadie on May 04, 2015, 11:44:00 PM
These were English dogs so if you think the English wanted to nail the McCanns then you won't think much about the English taking over this case now and searching for a body because of the English dogs. Bloody English 8(>((
You Portuguese PF ?
Or Scottish maybe?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 12:04:13 AM
Information generalises as the nose and the relationship are the same for any scent dog.
Apply your " information generalises as the nose and the relationship are the same for any scent dog" to all the specific alerts / non-alerts in the case and explain how you feel "handler bias" manifested itself.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: sadie on May 05, 2015, 12:08:07 AM
Dislike who? I don't dislike the English @)(++(* You were the one who said they were nailing the McCanns with their dogs.
In order to determine whether there was any handler bias, it would be extremely helpful to know who paid for Martin Grime & his dogs to go to Portugal.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 12:16:40 AM
In order to determine whether there was any handler bias, it would be extremely helpful to know who paid for Martin Grime & his dogs to go to Portugal.
The world was watching so the English sent their best dogs to find the missing English child.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: sadie on May 05, 2015, 12:26:14 AM
In order to determine whether there was any handler bias, it would be extremely helpful to know who paid for Martin Grime & his dogs to go to Portugal.
Are you suggesting that Martin Grimes would create false alerts to please whoever paid him?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: sadie on May 05, 2015, 12:51:07 AM
That doesn't answer the question of who paid for them. Was it the Portuguese police, the Home Office, The Fund or who?
Mark Harrison suggested to the PJ to bring in these dogs in July 2007. no one knows if the Uk or Portuguese police paid for them, logic states it probably was the Portuguese police, it certainly will never have been the "fund"
Bias? Are you mad?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 05, 2015, 01:04:09 AM
I have two FOI answers that, between them, confirm that ...
No.
Eleanor is right ...
You have no such thing so Im wondering why you state this lie.Please post the reply to your request that says Mr. grime never went to the usa with his dogs...surprised (not) you didnt add it to your post
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2015, 01:32:10 AM
As I said, it would be helpful to know who paid for what was effectively a private investigation team.
Well it certainly was NOT Mr Grime personally as some would have you believe as at the time he was working for the polce, and he has stated as much in his sworn statements, its all in the files
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 01:33:16 AM
As I said, it would be helpful to know who paid for what was effectively a private investigation team.
The Portuguese probably paid to bring them over. Eddie's first alert in this case was at the wardrobe it had nothing to do with MG and Keela didn't alert to blood. The second alert inside the apartment from Eddie was behind the sofa and Keela did alert to blood. But after the first "no blood" alert they would be looking at that second alert spot where possibly death occurred.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2015, 02:09:23 AM
More to the point, who was paid for the dog's searches. Martin Grime or The Yorkshire Police?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2015, 05:34:33 AM
More to the point, who was paid for the dog's searches. Martin Grime or The Yorkshire Police?
Did you not read the posts previous? The dogs were sent to Portugal by the Yorkshire police on the recommendation of Mark Harrison. Mr Grime at the time worked for Yorkshire police as the dog handler. Why would HE get paid personally? He was on a salary at the time. End of.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 05, 2015, 07:33:06 AM
Did you not read the posts previous? The dogs were sent to Portugal by the Yorkshire police on the recommendation of Mark Harrison. Mr Grime at the time worked for Yorkshire police as the dog handler. Why would HE get paid personally? He was on a salary at the time. End of. Where is the head banging smiley? Can't find it.
Martin Grime's contract with SYP ended while he was still out there.
SYP would not have sent him out on such a basis.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 09:06:25 AM
The dog alerts were significant. Both dogs alerted behind the couch in the living room of G5A and to the car. Blood was found, meaning both dogs alerted correctly. Eddie alerted in other places. No blood was found by Keela. Although no hard evidence was found Eddie's alerts shouldn't be ignored because he may have been right.
NO evidence of blood was found. It is an assumption that there was, because that's all Keela was trained to detect.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 05, 2015, 09:11:46 AM
There is an excellent book written by a psychologist who joined a millennial cult in order to do participant observation. The main point of interest was that despite repeated dates identified by the cult leader for the rapture, and such dates being regularly disappointing, the more this happened, the stronger the belief became because they had too much ego identity invested in the belief system and the cost of changing ones mind was almost equivalent to loss of life. So they kept believing beyond rationality.
This case has never had enough evidence to plump for any explanation. Amaral was wrong and the AG was right.
All we are left with is true believers with too much to lose if hey admit their error. The brightest and most moral of the McCann [ censored word ] have quietly slipped away and regained their lives while the true fanatics have gone to twitter.
Fascinating.
That sounds interesting. What's the name of the book?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 09:28:29 AM
Grime states that although Keela alerts very specifically to a small area where blood is found, Eddie was trained to alert to the general odour of death in a wider area. This is normal for rescue dogs as they are trained to follow an odour gradient.
The clothes were bundled together and we know that odour transfers from item to item in close proximity.
The 'couple' of alerts are to 5a and to clothes. The clothes had also been in 5a so a single source could have existed.
It is worth remembering that the scientifically determined best estimate for scent dogs is of the order of 80%. Statistically this error rate is increased for tests that require two alerts, the uncertainty increases by the multiple of each individual test, leading to a joint Eddie/Keela alert is 80% of 80%, or 64%. So each of those alerts has a two out of three possibility of being true or more importantly a one on three chance of being wrong.
So we have moved from a contention that there were multiple alerts indicating cadaver odour to the possibility that it was actually a single source detected with an chance of one in three being totally incorrect.
That is the truth value of the dogs.
Ok. So a 64% of correctly alerting to a scent within his training parameters.
Unconscious cueing? Can unconscious bias be excluded? The inspections weren't double-blind.
Sex fluids? Some people don't believe that decaying sex fluids are within those parameters... whereas I find the notes of the Jersey alerts to be ambiguous. If that decaying scent is within them, then that adds a different factor as to what he may have correctly alerted to.
Blood? Grime has stated that the CSI dog (Keela) only reacts to the physical presence of blood. Grime stated that Eddie also reacted to dried blood from a living person, but he did not state that there needed to be a physical presence for him to do so. If a bloodied plaster had been left lying around and removed just before the inspection, Keela wouldn't have reacted, but it's not known whether Eddie would have noticed the airborne scent in the absence of the physical source.
Other decaying human material? Then there's the possibility that he was reacting to the scent of other decomposing body material (e.g. the hypothetical example of a tiny lump of flesh from a sliced finger). He would be alerting correctly, but the person could still be alive.
Corpse or contaminant? Then there is the possibility that he was correctly alerting to the residual scent of an entire corpse. That could be the result of a body having physically lain in situ, or it could be something within the scent area that had been in contact with a body at some point. That apartment had gone from residential to a holiday let. There doesn't appear to have been any eliminatory investigation as to where the furniture came from.
Madeleine? If he had alerted to the residual scent of a dead body, could that have been Madeleine? I have read the literature on various scientific experiments, just as I have read anecdotal accounts mainly promoted by dog handlers.
I don't believe that the possibility can be totally excluded, but the number of VOCs released in the first 1-2 hours are few. And even then scientific experiments conducted in controlled conditions don't mimic everyday reality.
How likely, therefore, is it that Eddie actually did react to a residual scent of a dead Madeleine?
It certainly doesn't appear as simple as missing child + dog alert = dead child.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 09:30:32 AM
Martin Grime's contract with SYP ended while he was still out there.
SYP would not have sent him out on such a basis.
Gerald McCann believed he worked for SYP;
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 09:42:55 AM
What Really Happens When Prophecy Fails: The Case of Lubavitch. Dein, Simon (2001) Sociology of Religion 62:3: 383-401. Based on participant observation in the Stamford Hill Lubavitch community (U.K.). The failure of a messianic prophecy was followed by more proselytizing at the same pace. Members rationally explained the disconfirmation & spiritualized its meaning. Associated Search Terms: Participant observation; Disconfirmation; Jewish, Lubavitcher, Great Britain; Cognitive dissonance
When Prophecy Passes Unnoticed: New Perspectives on Failed Prophecy. Bader, Christopher D. (1999) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:1: 119-131. Associated Search Terms: Participant observation; UFO cult; Cognitive dissonance; Disconfirmation
Fifteen Years of Failed Prophecy. Coping with Cognitive Dissonance in a Baha'i Sect. Balch, Robert W., John Dohn Domitrovich, Barbara Lynn Mahnke, and Vanessa Morrison (1997) In Thomas Robbins and Susan J. Palmer (eds.), Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem. Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. New York: Routledge, pp. 73-90. Based on 1980-96 participant observation, interviews, & documentary research on an offshoot from Baha'i. Associated Search Terms: United States, Montana, Missoula; Millennial; Participant observation; Cognitive dissonance; Baha´is Under the Provisions of the Covenant; Millenarian, U.S.A.
Prophetic Failure: A Re-Testing of the Festinger, Riecken and Schachter Study of Disconfirmed Prophecy in a Millennial Cult. Mahnke, Barbara Lynn (1987) Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Montana. Associated Search Terms: Millennial; Cognitive dissonance; Millenarian, U.S.A.; Baha´is Under the Provisions of the Covenant
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 09:46:15 AM
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Grime's retired just before he left Portugal and before he started in Jersey. Eddie and Keela went out of authentication before he got to Jersey and he would not have been able to use them for police reasons in England, but Jersey did not require certification.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 09:48:20 AM
Madeleine: McCanns consult American lawyers over 'cadaver dog' evidence Daily Mail
Last updated at 18:07 16 September 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann's legal team have consulted the lawyers of an American man accused of murdering his estranged wife in a case where cadaver dog evidence was key, a source said today.
Two British sniffer dogs, one capable of detecting blood and human remains, were brought to Portugal in early August.
The cadaver dog picked up a "scent of death" on everything from Mrs McCann's clothes to missing Madeleine's favourite soft toy Cuddle Cat, according to reports.
During police interviews the McCanns were shown a video of the animal "going crazy" when it approached their Renault Scenic hire car, newspapers have claimed.
Leaked reports from the investigation have suggested Madeleine's parents could have accidentally killed her and then disposed of her body using the car.
Although they do not know the full details of Portuguese prosecutors' case against them, the McCanns are concerned it may rest on the dog's reaction.
They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin.
The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain.
Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found.
Detectives suspected Zapata of involvement in her disappearance but did not charge him because of a lack of evidence.
Police decided to conduct new searches using cadaver dogs, a new investigative technique, when an old friend of Mrs Zapata contacted them about the case in 2004.
Zapata, 68, was charged with first-degree murder last year after the dogs indicated they sniffed human remains in a small basement "crawl space" at the former family home in Madison and other properties linked to him.
But Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled last month that the evidence that led to the charge could not be put before the jury.
He said the dogs were too unreliable in detecting the odour of remains and noted that no remains were actually found.
The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogs' track record by Zapata's defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.
According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Mr Fiedler told the court: "The state has failed to convince me that it's any more reliable than the flip of a coin." Zapata denies murder, and the jury in the case went out on Friday to start considering its verdict.
A source close to the McCanns' solicitors said: "The legal team are in touch with the lawyers who represented the defendant in the case.
"The court papers, giving the legal submissions, are on their way to the McCann team for consideration.
"At the moment there are no formal charges and therefore there is no formal allegation against which the McCann team can work. We are having to work a little bit in the dark.
"But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs - albeit British ones which are said to be particularly good - this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge's attention."
ZAPATA ADMITS KILLING WIFE, GETS 5 YEARS THE FORMER MADISON MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO THE 1976 MURDER.
On Oct. 11, 1976, Eugene Zapata hit his wife on the head with a rectangular paperweight, then strangled her until his hands hurt. He wrapped her body in a tent and buried it.
For more than 30 years, he maintained that Jeanette Zapata just disappeared. He kept the secret until earlier this month, when he confessed to Madison police.
Zapata's confession came Feb. 5. He gave a detailed account, as required under a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors to avoid another trial.
On Monday, Zapata, 69, pleaded guilty to homicide by reckless conduct and was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison, though it's likely he will serve less than that. Zapata's statement to police was described in court Monday by Assistant District Attorney Robert Kaiser.
Zapata was tried in the fall for first-degree murder, but after 30 hours of deliberation, the jury could not reach a verdict and Dane County Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler declared a mistrial. A second trial was to start next month.
One of Zapata's daughters, Linda Zapata, who testified for the prosecution during his trial, said she forgave her father and expressed relief at knowing what happened to her mother.
"Although I don't condone what you did to Mom, I do forgive you and I love you," she said. "I hope you take this time now as a chance to come clean, ask for and accept forgiveness. You deserve that too."
But her father had nothing to say.
"At this time and at this phase I would have no comment," Zapata said when given the chance to speak.
Zapata, a retired state Department of Transportation worker, was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs and will be taken to Dodge Correctional Institution for assignment to a Wisconsin prison.
STRANGLED WIFE
Kaiser said Zapata, with his lawyers present, gave a statement on Feb. 5 to Madison Police Detective Marianne Flynn Statz in which he talked about going on Oct. 11, 1976, to the home on Indian Trace on Madison's East Side where Jeanette Zapata lived with the couple's three children.
The Zapatas were getting divorced and Zapata wasn't to be at the home, except at times approved by a judge to pick up their children.
"A verbal argument ensued between the defendant and Jeanette Zapata," Kaiser said. The argument became heated but not violent. But after Jeanette Zapata went into the kitchen, Eugene Zapata told police, he picked up a rectangular draftsman's weight, an item used to hold down blueprints.
"He described himself to Detective Statz as 'snapping,'" Kaiser said. He approached Jeanette Zapata from behind and "struck her hard," Kaiser said, probably more than once on the top and back of her head.
"Jeanette Zapata did not see the attack coming," Kaiser said.
She fell to the floor and hit the dishwasher door on the way down, Kaiser said. Then Eugene Zapata strangled her "until his hands hurt," he said. Afterward, he wrapped a cord around her neck, Kaiser said, "to assure himself that she was dead."
Kaiser said Zapata wrapped Jeanette Zapata's body in a poplin tent and took it in his car to a farm field near Madison. In 1977, Zapata bought vacant land in Juneau County and moved her body there, where it stayed until 2005. Then, he and his current wife, Joan, decided to move to Nevada and sell the land.
Zapata dug up Jeanette Zapata's remains and moved them to a storage locker in Sun Prairie with some camping equipment. Later in 2005, he disposed of the remains in several Dumpsters at the Juneau County landfill. District Attorney Brian Blanchard said Monday that although police searched the landfill in 2006, no new search for remains was made after Zapata's statement to Statz.
Although the evidence was excluded from Zapata's first trial, police said corpse-sniffing dogs indicated the scent of human remains at the Indian Trace home and two other homes occupied by Zapata as well as a storage locker and a rental car. Based on Zapata's statement, the locker and car indications were correct.
CLOSURE WANTED
Stephen Hurley, one of Zapata's attorneys, said after the hearing that he couldn't disclose much about how the plea agreement was reached, citing attorney-client privilege. But he said it came about "because everyone wanted to give closure to it."
"Both sides faced a risk were the matter to be retried," Hurley said, "which is generally what occurs with kind of an all-or-nothing proposition such as a first-degree homicide trial. So it was simply, I believe, both sides wanting to give closure to it."
Those sentiments were echoed by Blanchard.
"Part of what happened after the Madison Police Department took a cold case from nowhere to today is the ability now to have the family and friends of Jeanette Zapata know exactly what happened to her," Blanchard said. "That is a huge achievement for justice and closure for the family."
Kaiser said during the hearing that if Zapata had been convicted of first-degree murder during a trial, he could have gone to the grave never telling his family what had happened to Jeanette Zapata.
'CHANCE TO GRIEVE'
Linda Zapata said during her statement in court that her father's interview with police gave herself and others "a precious gift," the chance to grieve and heal.
"Mom deserved the truth about what really happened that morning and I thank you for finally giving her that," she said to her father. "My mom didn't abandon me or my family. You told Detective Statz that mom was a good mother, that she never deserved to die and that you were very sorry. Those words hang with me and give me comfort."
But her brother, Steven, who has defended his father throughout the case, said he is still convinced his father is innocent and pleaded guilty "just for simplicity," and for the sake of his older sister, Christine.
"I guess I want to say I still think he's innocent," Steven Zapata said. "I still love him and support him."\
ZAPATA'S SENTENCE
Eugene Zapata committed his crime in 1976, before Wisconsin enacted its "truth in sentencing" law. Under the old law, Zapata must serve at least one-quarter of his five-year sentence before he is eligible for parole and must be released after serving two-thirds of his sentence. That means he will be free after serving about three years of the five-year sentence.\
ZAPATA TIMELINE
Some key dates surrounding the disappearance and murder of Jeanette Zapata: Dec. 26, 1959: Eugene Zapata and Jeanette Herrling marry. Their first child, Christine, is born in 1960. Two more children, Steven and Linda, follow.
May 12, 1976: Jeanette Zapata serves Eugene Zapata with divorce papers.
May 12-Oct. 11, 1976: Eugene Zapata maintains what prosecutors now label a "stalking diary," following his estranged wife's movements, a romantic relationship she was having, her relationship with their children and even the contents of the trash cans in her home. He also hires a private detective.
Sept. 21, 1976: Court commissioner bars Eugene Zapata from the family home on Indian Trace except for two hours of child visitation on Saturdays.
Oct. 11, 1976: Jeanette Zapata vanishes.
Feb. 27, 1977: Divorce granted with Jeanette Zapata absent. A few days later, Eugene Zapata marries his current wife, Joan.
Nov. 30, 2004: High school friend Peg Weekley, of Oklahoma City, writes to Madison police to ask if they have any news on Jeanette Zapata's disappearance.
Dec. 3, 2004: Madison police restart investigation.
Jan. 12, 2005: Madison police use cadaver dogs to check the basement of Zapata's former home on Indian Trace in Madison. Other cadaver dog searches of that property and other locations take place throughout 2005 and into 2006. The dogs alert to the scent of human remains, but none are found.
April 7-14, 2005: Zapata comes to Wisconsin from his home in Henderson, Nev., cleans out a storage locker and visits the Juneau County Landfill near Mauston.
Aug. 28, 2006: Zapata is charged with first-degree murder in Dane County and is arrested in Nevada.
Sept. 4-17, 2007: Trial is heard, ends in mistrial after jury is deadlocked.
Oct. 2, 2007: Prosecutors say they will retry Zapata.
Monday: Zapata pleads guilty to homicide by reckless conduct and is sentenced to five years in prison.
What Really Happens When Prophecy Fails: The Case of Lubavitch. Dein, Simon (2001) Sociology of Religion 62:3: 383-401. Based on participant observation in the Stamford Hill Lubavitch community (U.K.). The failure of a messianic prophecy was followed by more proselytizing at the same pace. Members rationally explained the disconfirmation & spiritualized its meaning. Associated Search Terms: Participant observation; Disconfirmation; Jewish, Lubavitcher, Great Britain; Cognitive dissonance
When Prophecy Passes Unnoticed: New Perspectives on Failed Prophecy. Bader, Christopher D. (1999) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:1: 119-131. Associated Search Terms: Participant observation; UFO cult; Cognitive dissonance; Disconfirmation
Fifteen Years of Failed Prophecy. Coping with Cognitive Dissonance in a Baha'i Sect. Balch, Robert W., John Dohn Domitrovich, Barbara Lynn Mahnke, and Vanessa Morrison (1997) In Thomas Robbins and Susan J. Palmer (eds.), Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem. Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. New York: Routledge, pp. 73-90. Based on 1980-96 participant observation, interviews, & documentary research on an offshoot from Baha'i. Associated Search Terms: United States, Montana, Missoula; Millennial; Participant observation; Cognitive dissonance; Baha´is Under the Provisions of the Covenant; Millenarian, U.S.A.
Prophetic Failure: A Re-Testing of the Festinger, Riecken and Schachter Study of Disconfirmed Prophecy in a Millennial Cult. Mahnke, Barbara Lynn (1987) Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Montana. Associated Search Terms: Millennial; Cognitive dissonance; Millenarian, U.S.A.; Baha´is Under the Provisions of the Covenant
Many thanks.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 09:53:31 AM
What Really Happens When Prophecy Fails: The Case of Lubavitch. Dein, Simon (2001) Sociology of Religion 62:3: 383-401. Based on participant observation in the Stamford Hill Lubavitch community (U.K.). The failure of a messianic prophecy was followed by more proselytizing at the same pace. Members rationally explained the disconfirmation & spiritualized its meaning. Associated Search Terms: Participant observation; Disconfirmation; Jewish, Lubavitcher, Great Britain; Cognitive dissonance
When Prophecy Passes Unnoticed: New Perspectives on Failed Prophecy. Bader, Christopher D. (1999) Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:1: 119-131. Associated Search Terms: Participant observation; UFO cult; Cognitive dissonance; Disconfirmation
Fifteen Years of Failed Prophecy. Coping with Cognitive Dissonance in a Baha'i Sect. Balch, Robert W., John Dohn Domitrovich, Barbara Lynn Mahnke, and Vanessa Morrison (1997) In Thomas Robbins and Susan J. Palmer (eds.), Millennium, Messiahs, and Mayhem. Contemporary Apocalyptic Movements. New York: Routledge, pp. 73-90. Based on 1980-96 participant observation, interviews, & documentary research on an offshoot from Baha'i. Associated Search Terms: United States, Montana, Missoula; Millennial; Participant observation; Cognitive dissonance; Baha´is Under the Provisions of the Covenant; Millenarian, U.S.A.
Prophetic Failure: A Re-Testing of the Festinger, Riecken and Schachter Study of Disconfirmed Prophecy in a Millennial Cult. Mahnke, Barbara Lynn (1987) Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Montana. Associated Search Terms: Millennial; Cognitive dissonance; Millenarian, U.S.A.; Baha´is Under the Provisions of the Covenant
Wow.........That`ll impress some on here like rabbits caught in the headlights .....( or a cult following?)
..........but is about as on topic as the first time you deflected with it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 09:55:59 AM
Grime's retired just before he left Portugal and before he started in Jersey. Eddie and Keela went out of authentication before he got to Jersey and he would not have been able to use them for police reasons in England, but Jersey did not require certification.
Retired or not, he was working for SYP when in Portugal;
I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 10:02:42 AM
Wow.........That`ll impress some on here like rabbits caught in the headlights .....( or a cult following?)
..........but is about as on topic as the first time you deflected with it.
If people didn't rationlise their beliefs there would be no religions. Sociological studies are enlightening, but cannot be described as 'scientific'. Bit like dog alerts really. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 10:05:05 AM
Madeleine: McCanns consult American lawyers over 'cadaver dog' evidence Daily Mail
Last updated at 18:07 16 September 2007
Kate and Gerry McCann's legal team have consulted the lawyers of an American man accused of murdering his estranged wife in a case where cadaver dog evidence was key, a source said today.
Two British sniffer dogs, one capable of detecting blood and human remains, were brought to Portugal in early August.
The cadaver dog picked up a "scent of death" on everything from Mrs McCann's clothes to missing Madeleine's favourite soft toy Cuddle Cat, according to reports.
During police interviews the McCanns were shown a video of the animal "going crazy" when it approached their Renault Scenic hire car, newspapers have claimed.
Leaked reports from the investigation have suggested Madeleine's parents could have accidentally killed her and then disposed of her body using the car.
Although they do not know the full details of Portuguese prosecutors' case against them, the McCanns are concerned it may rest on the dog's reaction.
They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin.
The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain.
Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found.
Detectives suspected Zapata of involvement in her disappearance but did not charge him because of a lack of evidence.
Police decided to conduct new searches using cadaver dogs, a new investigative technique, when an old friend of Mrs Zapata contacted them about the case in 2004.
Zapata, 68, was charged with first-degree murder last year after the dogs indicated they sniffed human remains in a small basement "crawl space" at the former family home in Madison and other properties linked to him.
But Dane County Judge Patrick Fiedler ruled last month that the evidence that led to the charge could not be put before the jury.
He said the dogs were too unreliable in detecting the odour of remains and noted that no remains were actually found.
The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogs' track record by Zapata's defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.
According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Mr Fiedler told the court: "The state has failed to convince me that it's any more reliable than the flip of a coin." Zapata denies murder, and the jury in the case went out on Friday to start considering its verdict.
A source close to the McCanns' solicitors said: "The legal team are in touch with the lawyers who represented the defendant in the case.
"The court papers, giving the legal submissions, are on their way to the McCann team for consideration.
"At the moment there are no formal charges and therefore there is no formal allegation against which the McCann team can work. We are having to work a little bit in the dark.
"But given that we understand the central plank of what the police are alleging involves sniffer dogs - albeit British ones which are said to be particularly good - this is important and relevant, and will be raised with the police and brought to the judge's attention."
ZAPATA ADMITS KILLING WIFE, GETS 5 YEARS THE FORMER MADISON MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO THE 1976 MURDER.
On Oct. 11, 1976, Eugene Zapata hit his wife on the head with a rectangular paperweight, then strangled her until his hands hurt. He wrapped her body in a tent and buried it.
For more than 30 years, he maintained that Jeanette Zapata just disappeared. He kept the secret until earlier this month, when he confessed to Madison police.
Zapata's confession came Feb. 5. He gave a detailed account, as required under a plea agreement he reached with prosecutors to avoid another trial.
On Monday, Zapata, 69, pleaded guilty to homicide by reckless conduct and was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison, though it's likely he will serve less than that. Zapata's statement to police was described in court Monday by Assistant District Attorney Robert Kaiser.
Zapata was tried in the fall for first-degree murder, but after 30 hours of deliberation, the jury could not reach a verdict and Dane County Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler declared a mistrial. A second trial was to start next month.
One of Zapata's daughters, Linda Zapata, who testified for the prosecution during his trial, said she forgave her father and expressed relief at knowing what happened to her mother.
"Although I don't condone what you did to Mom, I do forgive you and I love you," she said. "I hope you take this time now as a chance to come clean, ask for and accept forgiveness. You deserve that too."
But her father had nothing to say.
"At this time and at this phase I would have no comment," Zapata said when given the chance to speak.
Zapata, a retired state Department of Transportation worker, was taken from the courtroom in handcuffs and will be taken to Dodge Correctional Institution for assignment to a Wisconsin prison.
STRANGLED WIFE
Kaiser said Zapata, with his lawyers present, gave a statement on Feb. 5 to Madison Police Detective Marianne Flynn Statz in which he talked about going on Oct. 11, 1976, to the home on Indian Trace on Madison's East Side where Jeanette Zapata lived with the couple's three children.
The Zapatas were getting divorced and Zapata wasn't to be at the home, except at times approved by a judge to pick up their children.
"A verbal argument ensued between the defendant and Jeanette Zapata," Kaiser said. The argument became heated but not violent. But after Jeanette Zapata went into the kitchen, Eugene Zapata told police, he picked up a rectangular draftsman's weight, an item used to hold down blueprints.
"He described himself to Detective Statz as 'snapping,'" Kaiser said. He approached Jeanette Zapata from behind and "struck her hard," Kaiser said, probably more than once on the top and back of her head.
"Jeanette Zapata did not see the attack coming," Kaiser said.
She fell to the floor and hit the dishwasher door on the way down, Kaiser said. Then Eugene Zapata strangled her "until his hands hurt," he said. Afterward, he wrapped a cord around her neck, Kaiser said, "to assure himself that she was dead."
Kaiser said Zapata wrapped Jeanette Zapata's body in a poplin tent and took it in his car to a farm field near Madison. In 1977, Zapata bought vacant land in Juneau County and moved her body there, where it stayed until 2005. Then, he and his current wife, Joan, decided to move to Nevada and sell the land.
Zapata dug up Jeanette Zapata's remains and moved them to a storage locker in Sun Prairie with some camping equipment. Later in 2005, he disposed of the remains in several Dumpsters at the Juneau County landfill. District Attorney Brian Blanchard said Monday that although police searched the landfill in 2006, no new search for remains was made after Zapata's statement to Statz.
Although the evidence was excluded from Zapata's first trial, police said corpse-sniffing dogs indicated the scent of human remains at the Indian Trace home and two other homes occupied by Zapata as well as a storage locker and a rental car. Based on Zapata's statement, the locker and car indications were correct.
CLOSURE WANTED
Stephen Hurley, one of Zapata's attorneys, said after the hearing that he couldn't disclose much about how the plea agreement was reached, citing attorney-client privilege. But he said it came about "because everyone wanted to give closure to it."
"Both sides faced a risk were the matter to be retried," Hurley said, "which is generally what occurs with kind of an all-or-nothing proposition such as a first-degree homicide trial. So it was simply, I believe, both sides wanting to give closure to it."
Those sentiments were echoed by Blanchard.
"Part of what happened after the Madison Police Department took a cold case from nowhere to today is the ability now to have the family and friends of Jeanette Zapata know exactly what happened to her," Blanchard said. "That is a huge achievement for justice and closure for the family."
Kaiser said during the hearing that if Zapata had been convicted of first-degree murder during a trial, he could have gone to the grave never telling his family what had happened to Jeanette Zapata.
'CHANCE TO GRIEVE'
Linda Zapata said during her statement in court that her father's interview with police gave herself and others "a precious gift," the chance to grieve and heal.
"Mom deserved the truth about what really happened that morning and I thank you for finally giving her that," she said to her father. "My mom didn't abandon me or my family. You told Detective Statz that mom was a good mother, that she never deserved to die and that you were very sorry. Those words hang with me and give me comfort."
But her brother, Steven, who has defended his father throughout the case, said he is still convinced his father is innocent and pleaded guilty "just for simplicity," and for the sake of his older sister, Christine.
"I guess I want to say I still think he's innocent," Steven Zapata said. "I still love him and support him."\
ZAPATA'S SENTENCE
Eugene Zapata committed his crime in 1976, before Wisconsin enacted its "truth in sentencing" law. Under the old law, Zapata must serve at least one-quarter of his five-year sentence before he is eligible for parole and must be released after serving two-thirds of his sentence. That means he will be free after serving about three years of the five-year sentence.\
ZAPATA TIMELINE
Some key dates surrounding the disappearance and murder of Jeanette Zapata: Dec. 26, 1959: Eugene Zapata and Jeanette Herrling marry. Their first child, Christine, is born in 1960. Two more children, Steven and Linda, follow.
May 12, 1976: Jeanette Zapata serves Eugene Zapata with divorce papers.
May 12-Oct. 11, 1976: Eugene Zapata maintains what prosecutors now label a "stalking diary," following his estranged wife's movements, a romantic relationship she was having, her relationship with their children and even the contents of the trash cans in her home. He also hires a private detective.
Sept. 21, 1976: Court commissioner bars Eugene Zapata from the family home on Indian Trace except for two hours of child visitation on Saturdays.
Oct. 11, 1976: Jeanette Zapata vanishes.
Feb. 27, 1977: Divorce granted with Jeanette Zapata absent. A few days later, Eugene Zapata marries his current wife, Joan.
Nov. 30, 2004: High school friend Peg Weekley, of Oklahoma City, writes to Madison police to ask if they have any news on Jeanette Zapata's disappearance.
Dec. 3, 2004: Madison police restart investigation.
Jan. 12, 2005: Madison police use cadaver dogs to check the basement of Zapata's former home on Indian Trace in Madison. Other cadaver dog searches of that property and other locations take place throughout 2005 and into 2006. The dogs alert to the scent of human remains, but none are found.
April 7-14, 2005: Zapata comes to Wisconsin from his home in Henderson, Nev., cleans out a storage locker and visits the Juneau County Landfill near Mauston.
Aug. 28, 2006: Zapata is charged with first-degree murder in Dane County and is arrested in Nevada.
Sept. 4-17, 2007: Trial is heard, ends in mistrial after jury is deadlocked.
Oct. 2, 2007: Prosecutors say they will retry Zapata.
Monday: Zapata pleads guilty to homicide by reckless conduct and is sentenced to five years in prison.
Retired or not, he was working for SYP when in Portugal;
I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
No he wasn't.
On his profile, he gives as his base his home address in Oxford.
And unlike in the second enquiry, where we have seen actual UK police officers working on the ground in Portugal, wearing their police-officer uniforms, Grime never wore his, with good reason.
It is an offence to imitate a police officer if you are not one.
In Portugal during the (now shelved) initial Madeleine investigation, Grime was not a serving UK police officer.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 10:11:43 AM
On his profile, he gives as his base his home address in Oxford.
And unlike in the second enquiry, where we have seen actual UK police officers working on the ground in Portugal, wearing their police-officer uniforms, Grime never wore his, with good reason.
It is an offence to imitate a police officer if you are not one.
In Portugal during the (now shelved) initial Madeleine investigation, Grime was not a serving UK police officer.
IIRC he was on extended special leave prior to his retirement date that occurred while he was in Portugal. I suspect that be was not there as part of his police work.
It is not an offence to impersonate a police officer.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 10:13:38 AM
On his profile, he gives as his base his home address in Oxford.
And unlike in the second enquiry, where we have seen actual UK police officers working on the ground in Portugal, wearing their police-officer uniforms, Grime never wore his, with good reason.
It is an offence to imitate a police officer if you are not one.
In Portugal during the (now shelved) initial Madeleine investigation, Grime was not a serving UK police officer.
He was working for south Yorkshire police, whether retired or not.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 10:15:34 AM
On his profile, he gives as his base his home address in Oxford.
And unlike in the second enquiry, where we have seen actual UK police officers working on the ground in Portugal, wearing their police-officer uniforms, Grime never wore his, with good reason.
It is an offence to imitate a police officer if you are not one.
In Portugal during the (now shelved) initial Madeleine investigation, Grime was not a serving UK police officer.
I agree that if the trip was official SYP business, I would have expected correspondence to be on SYP letterhead and not his personal address.
I don't think the uniform issue means anything either way - Harrison wasn't in uniform either.
The most likely explanation for the confusion (IMO) is that he was retired as of Aug 1, but the 5A inspection was on July 31 - technically still employed on that day, but took unused leave.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 05, 2015, 10:16:53 AM
IIRC he was on extended special leave prior to his retirement date that occurred while he was in Portugal. I suspect that be was not there as part of his police work.
It is not an offence to impersonate a police officer.
Police Act 1996 s 90 created offences relating to the impersonation of a police officer:
(1) ANY PERSON WHO WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE IMPERSONATES A MEMBER OF A POLICE FORCE OR SPECIAL CONSTABLE, OR MAKES ANY STATEMENT OR DOES ANY ACT CALCULATED FALSELY TO SUGGEST THAT HE IS SUCH A MEMBER OR CONSTABLE, SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE ON SUMMARY CONVICTION TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS OR TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING LEVEL 5 ON THE STANDARD SCALE, OR TO BOTH.
(2) ANY PERSON WHO, NOT BEING A CONSTABLE, WEARS ANY ARTICLE OF POLICE UNIFORM IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT GIVES HIM AN APPEARANCE SO NEARLY RESEMBLING THAT OF A MEMBER OF A POLICE FORCE AS TO BE CALCULATED TO DECEIVE SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE ON SUMMARY CONVICTION TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING LEVEL 3 ON THE STANDARD SCALE.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO, NOT BEING A MEMBER OF A POLICE FORCE OR SPECIAL CONSTABLE, HAS IN HIS POSSESSION ANY ARTICLE OF POLICE UNIFORM SHALL, UNLESS HE PROVES THAT HE OBTAINED POSSESSION OF THAT ARTICLE LAWFULLY AND HAS POSSESSION OF IT FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE, BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE ON SUMMARY CONVICTION TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING LEVEL 1 ON THE STANDARD SCALE.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 05, 2015, 10:18:12 AM
I agree that if the trip was official SYP business, I would have expected correspondence to be on SYP letterhead and not his personal address.
I don't think the uniform issue means anything either way - Harrison wasn't in uniform either.
The most likely explanation for the confusion (IMO) is that he was retired as of Aug 1, but the 5A inspection was on July 31 - technically still employed on that day, but took unused leave.
Are there photographs of Harrison?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 10:18:23 AM
Police Act 1996 s 90 created offences relating to the impersonation of a police officer:
(1) ANY PERSON WHO WITH INTENT TO DECEIVE IMPERSONATES A MEMBER OF A POLICE FORCE OR SPECIAL CONSTABLE, OR MAKES ANY STATEMENT OR DOES ANY ACT CALCULATED FALSELY TO SUGGEST THAT HE IS SUCH A MEMBER OR CONSTABLE, SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE ON SUMMARY CONVICTION TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM NOT EXCEEDING SIX MONTHS OR TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING LEVEL 5 ON THE STANDARD SCALE, OR TO BOTH.
(2) ANY PERSON WHO, NOT BEING A CONSTABLE, WEARS ANY ARTICLE OF POLICE UNIFORM IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT GIVES HIM AN APPEARANCE SO NEARLY RESEMBLING THAT OF A MEMBER OF A POLICE FORCE AS TO BE CALCULATED TO DECEIVE SHALL BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE ON SUMMARY CONVICTION TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING LEVEL 3 ON THE STANDARD SCALE.
(3) ANY PERSON WHO, NOT BEING A MEMBER OF A POLICE FORCE OR SPECIAL CONSTABLE, HAS IN HIS POSSESSION ANY ARTICLE OF POLICE UNIFORM SHALL, UNLESS HE PROVES THAT HE OBTAINED POSSESSION OF THAT ARTICLE LAWFULLY AND HAS POSSESSION OF IT FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE, BE GUILTY OF AN OFFENCE AND LIABLE ON SUMMARY CONVICTION TO A FINE NOT EXCEEDING LEVEL 1 ON THE STANDARD SCALE.
Yes. Thank you for confirming that the law does state that impersonating a police officer alone is NOT an offence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 10:24:08 AM
The original statement was tat it was an offence to impersonate a police officer. It is not. It is an offence to impersonate police officer with the intent to deceive. Two very different matters in law.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 10:42:38 AM
30 years later the dogs correctly alerted to the presence of a cadaver but no evidence was found. Another confession.
Oct. 11, 1976: Jeanette Zapata vanishes.
Jan. 12, 2005: Madison police use cadaver dogs to check the basement of Zapata's former home on Indian Trace in Madison. Other cadaver dog searches of that property and other locations take place throughout 2005 and into 2006. The dogs alert to the scent of human remains, but none are found.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2015, 10:59:32 AM
30 years later the dogs correctly alerted to the presence of a cadaver but no evidence was found. Another confession.
Oct. 11, 1976: Jeanette Zapata vanishes.
Jan. 12, 2005: Madison police use cadaver dogs to check the basement of Zapata's former home on Indian Trace in Madison. Other cadaver dog searches of that property and other locations take place throughout 2005 and into 2006. The dogs alert to the scent of human remains, but none are found.
google anectdotal evidence
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 05, 2015, 11:02:43 AM
Ok. So a 64% of correctly alerting to a scent within his training parameters.
Unconscious cueing? Can unconscious bias be excluded? The inspections weren't double-blind.
Sex fluids? Some people don't believe that decaying sex fluids are within those parameters... whereas I find the notes of the Jersey alerts to be ambiguous. If that decaying scent is within them, then that adds a different factor as to what he may have correctly alerted to.
Blood? Grime has stated that the CSI dog (Keela) only reacts to the physical presence of blood. Grime stated that Eddie also reacted to dried blood from a living person, but he did not state that there needed to be a physical presence for him to do so. If a bloodied plaster had been left lying around and removed just before the inspection, Keela wouldn't have reacted, but it's not known whether Eddie would have noticed the airborne scent in the absence of the physical source.
Other decaying human material? Then there's the possibility that he was reacting to the scent of other decomposing body material (e.g. the hypothetical example of a tiny lump of flesh from a sliced finger). He would be alerting correctly, but the person could still be alive.
Corpse or contaminant? Then there is the possibility that he was correctly alerting to the residual scent of an entire corpse. That could be the result of a body having physically lain in situ, or it could be something within the scent area that had been in contact with a body at some point. That apartment had gone from residential to a holiday let. There doesn't appear to have been any eliminatory investigation as to where the furniture came from.
Madeleine? If he had alerted to the residual scent of a dead body, could that have been Madeleine? I have read the literature on various scientific experiments, just as I have read anecdotal accounts mainly promoted by dog handlers.
I don't believe that the possibility can be totally excluded, but the number of VOCs released in the first 1-2 hours are few. And even then scientific experiments conducted in controlled conditions don't mimic everyday reality.
How likely, therefore, is it that Eddie actually did react to a residual scent of a dead Madeleine?
It certainly doesn't appear as simple as missing child + dog alert = dead child.
A well reasoned post, Carana.
I find the time spent in 5A extraordinary when a comparison is made of the time the dogs spent there and in the other apartments in the complex.
Particularly the apartment where Eddie showed enough interest in one of the bedrooms for Martin Grime to have the bed moved ~ then cursorily dismissed and the apartment where the sideboard was pulled away from the wall to allow Eddie access ~ which he was called back from and stood down in almost indecent haste.
at 39:30 in ?B Eddie is continually called away from a point of interest in a corner of the room at the sideboard, which is later pulled out to allow better access (it is an English voice which prompts the action, which is not Martin Grime's).
at 39:50 Eddie decides he is going to snack on something he has retrieved from the waste bin in the kitchen.
at 41:07 Eddie is allowed a cursory run behind the sideboard before being stood down "we've searched this apartment with the VRD and he's shown no interest in the flat in what he's trained to find at all, so we're finished"
from 43:32 in 4D Eddie showed great interest in the areas under the beds where there was sweaty? footwear ~
at 46:35 it is declared that the VRD shows no interest in what he had been trained to find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4NMYPsFKb8
Three thoughts occur ... I presume the apartment where Eddie's interest meant the sideboard was moved out was 5B ... which shared a wall with 5A ... perhaps both flats also shared the source of an interesting smell?
I presume 4D was the apartment to which the McCanns were decanted on the night Madeleine disappeared; one wonders if that was known to Martin Grime, certainly apartment 5A had been international news for some months.
One wonders what weight a dog handler's opinion carries in the light of exactly the same excitement ~ minus the all important bark eventually forthcoming in 5A ~ which was not afforded the same work by the handler who already had the desired 'result' under his belt. The person with the English voice (Harrison?) noticed it ... it is also apparent to anyone watching the video.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 11:04:39 AM
30 years later the dogs correctly alerted to the presence of a cadaver but no evidence was found. Another confession.
Oct. 11, 1976: Jeanette Zapata vanishes.
Jan. 12, 2005: Madison police use cadaver dogs to check the basement of Zapata's former home on Indian Trace in Madison. Other cadaver dog searches of that property and other locations take place throughout 2005 and into 2006. The dogs alert to the scent of human remains, but none are found.
Black Swan.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 05, 2015, 11:22:14 AM
3.10.11
We now deal with the introduction of Martin GRIME and his Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) to Operation Rectangle. Operation Haven has established through enquiry with the NPIA, that Martin GRIME was an ACPO accredited dog handler whilst he was a serving police officer, but forfeited accreditation upon his retirement in July 2007. We mentioned that Mr GRIME remains on the ACPO accredited list of experts though his EVRD is no longer accredited by ACPO.
Information generalises as the nose and the relationship are the same for any scent dog.
That is rather a sweeping generalistion about Carew which would presuppose you know the identity and profession of that particular poster. Even to say "well I can tell by the posts" would imply you had eliminated the possibility that the poster was a wise man taking the piss which would presuppose you knew for sure he wasn't. That would leave one wondering.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 11:56:08 AM
Amazing how "cherry picking" in terms of interpretation along with " one wonders.......nudge, nudge, wink, wink " can seem to be used in attempts to traduce a professional doing his job.
Presumably the "expectation of a result" by the handler wasn`t quite so high outside the balcony............hence the weaker response by the dog ?
(He might have really gone for a good old woof otherwise.)
Was the same "expectation of a result" evident around some garments and not others ?.............Does the oft-touted cross contamination clause come into play here...........and was it known by the handler which were cross-contaminated and which weren`t ?
Huge expectation to alert to a t-shirt?
(Give me strength.)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 12:03:20 PM
The British have taken over this case and are searching for a body because of British dog evidence. Tannerman is history and they are using British dogs again. Not any old dog but their best ones. Oh the irony!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 12:13:54 PM
What are the chances of the only clothing (out of a huge amount in total) to be alerted to - just happening to have all been packed into the same box? Considering the number of containers involved - the odds of that happening merely by coincidence must be massive.
Why didn't Eddie alert to the same clothing whilst it was in the villa - but instead - only alerted to them after they were removed and taken elsewhere?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 12:18:29 PM
What are the chances of the only clothing (out of a huge amount in total) to be alerted to - just happening to have all been packed into the same box? Considering the number of containers involved - the odds of that happening merely by coincidence must be massive.
Why didn't Eddie alert to the same clothing whilst it was in the villa - but instead - only alerted to them after they were removed and taken elsewhere?
Clothes have to be screened separately. The dogs have to sniff up close to positively alert to clothes. Eddie doesn't bark alert unless unless he is certain.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 12:28:10 PM
Clothes have to be screened separately. The dogs have to sniff up close to positively alert to clothes. Eddie doesn't bark alert unless unless he is certain.
I thought Eddie could detect cadaverscent even though it was buried a couple of feet underground. Surely clothes situated in drawers/wardrobes would be a walk in the park for him?
Cuddlecat was completely ignored by Eddie whilst it was lying separately on the floor. But apparently was alerted to when placed in a cupboard.
That would seem to contradict your claim PF.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 12:32:31 PM
I thought Eddie could detect cadaverscent even though it was buried a couple of feet underground. Surely clothes situated in drawers/wardrobes would be a walk in the park for him?
Cuddlecat was completely ignored by Eddie whilst it was lying separately on the floor. But apparently was alerted to when placed in a cupboard.
That would seem to contradict your claim PF.
Nope that was a toy which can confuse the dog so Eddie marked it and brought it out of the bin. A second test was done and the toy was hidden from the dog to confirm. Clothes have to be screened separately. Go ask the experts the reason why.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 12:35:38 PM
Nope that was a toy which can confuse the dog so Eddie marked it and brought it out of the bin. A second test was done and the toy was hidden from the dog to confirm. Clothes have to be screened separately. Go ask the experts the reason why.
Similarly the key fob to the car was put into a bucket of sand for a confirmation test and both dogs alerted to it again.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 05, 2015, 12:36:27 PM
The inspection of clothing was inexplicable.
Some 3 months after the crime, clothing, not kept in special storage pending inspection, but in common circulation as clothing is (worn, washed, packed into suitcases ... etc.) was inspected once in the villa without reaction from either dog.
Then it was bundled into bog-standard cardboard boxes, transported to a separate location (the gym!) and laid out for a second inspection.
Keela went first and detected nothing.
Then Eddie went, barked a few times, picked a few things up in his mouth and the canard was born that Eddie detected death scent of Kate's clothes ...
Bizarre beyond words ...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 12:40:45 PM
Some 3 months after the crime, clothing, not kept in special storage pending inspection, but in common circulation as clothing is (worn, washed, packed into suitcases ... etc.) was inspected once in the villa without reaction from either dog.
Then it was bundled into bog-standard cardboard boxes, transported to a separate location (the gym!) and laid out for a second inspection.
Keela went first and detected nothing.
Then Eddie went, barked a few times, picked a few things up in his mouth and the canard was born that Eddie detected death scent of Kate's clothes ...
Bizarre beyond words ...
Eddie's first class record in cases and finding proof of death scent and bodies is the reason why his alerts will be taken seriously by the police.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Admin on May 05, 2015, 12:48:30 PM
Some 3 months after the crime, clothing, not kept in special storage pending inspection, but in common circulation as clothing is (worn, washed, packed into suitcases ... etc.) was inspected once in the villa without reaction from either dog.
Then it was bundled into bog-standard cardboard boxes, transported to a separate location (the gym!) and laid out for a second inspection.
Keela went first and detected nothing.
Then Eddie went, barked a few times, picked a few things up in his mouth and the canard was born that Eddie detected death scent of Kate's clothes ...
Bizarre beyond words ...
Had the case ever come to trial the gym and the underground car park fiascos would have been laughed out of court.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 12:55:07 PM
Nope that was a toy which can confuse the dog so Eddie marked it and brought it out of the bin. A second test was done and the toy was hidden from the dog to confirm. Clothes have to be screened separately. Go ask the experts the reason why.
The dogs were not capable of making such observations IMO. They are trained to detect certain odours wherever they are found - and do not have the capability to ignore some items because - (although they can smell cadaverscent on them) - they know they are toys.
The same goes for the clothing. The dogs are not aware it is clothing they are 'screening'. All they know is that if they detect a certain odour they have to 'alert'. What the item is which they are alerting to and where it is situated makes no difference to the dogs at all.
Have you any views on the fact that all the items alerted to in the gym - came out of the same box. No items from any other boxes were alerted to.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: DCI on May 05, 2015, 12:55:40 PM
Some 3 months after the crime, clothing, not kept in special storage pending inspection, but in common circulation as clothing is (worn, washed, packed into suitcases ... etc.) was inspected once in the villa without reaction from either dog.
Then it was bundled into bog-standard cardboard boxes, transported to a separate location (the gym!) and laid out for a second inspection.
Keela went first and detected nothing.
Then Eddie went, barked a few times, picked a few things up in his mouth and the canard was born that Eddie detected death scent of Kate's clothes ...
Bizarre beyond words ...
Every single item should have been bagged seperatly. I wonder what was picked up from the first dirty floor, the clothes were laid out on, before being re packed and laid out again.
And, why would they need to take cuddle cat, to this venue, when already screened?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 01:01:55 PM
Eddie's first class record in cases and finding proof of death scent and bodies is the reason why his alerts will be taken seriously by the police.
Grime admits himself that mistakes can be made - even in his own line of work.
Quote from the Mail on Sunday
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.’
The auditors’ interim report concludes: ‘It was an expensive mistake to bring in Mr Grime. It would have been far preferable and much cheaper to have tried to obtain appropriately trained dogs and handlers from UK police forces.’
Harper, it adds, did not consider this option. For much of the time Grime spent on Jersey, the report reveals, he was not even working with his dogs, but as an assistant to the Haut de la Garenne crime scene manager – duties for which he had no qualifications, and which did ‘not justify the payment to him of £650 a day’.
Meanwhile, Harper approached the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA), the body that co-ordinates all UK national police functions and training, asking for advice about forensic experts and equipment such as ground-penetrating radar.
End quote.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Montclair on May 05, 2015, 01:02:46 PM
Every single item should have been bagged seperatly. I wonder what was picked up from the first dirty floor, the clothes were laid out on, before being re packed and laid out again.
And, why would they need to take cuddle cat, to this venue, when already screened?
The Portuguese were totally overwhelmed by this investigation, the screenings in the gym and the car park were chaotic, arranged on the spur of the moment with little thought being given to the way in which the test items were handled. A unmitigated shambles.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Admin on May 05, 2015, 01:10:55 PM
That is rather a sweeping generalistion about Carew which would presuppose you know the identity and profession of that particular poster. Even to say "well I can tell by the posts" would imply you had eliminated the possibility that the poster was a wise man taking the piss which would presuppose you knew for sure he wasn't. That would leave one wondering.
I can only go on his analysis of the evidence which is patently unscientific.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 01:21:09 PM
The British have taken over this case and are searching for a body because of British dog evidence. Tannerman is history and they are using British dogs again. Not any old dog but their best ones. Oh the irony!
The British have not taken over the case.
They have been allowed a parallel investigation.
The Portuguese are also investigating.
There is no evidence to indicate that the are only considering a death and disposal locally.
Unless you have a cite, that just remains you biased opinion.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 01:22:28 PM
What are the chances of the only clothing (out of a huge amount in total) to be alerted to - just happening to have all been packed into the same box? Considering the number of containers involved - the odds of that happening merely by coincidence must be massive.
Why didn't Eddie alert to the same clothing whilst it was in the villa - but instead - only alerted to them after they were removed and taken elsewhere?
If all items were in the same transport box then contamination cannot be ignored.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 01:23:55 PM
Clothes have to be screened separately. The dogs have to sniff up close to positively alert to clothes. Eddie doesn't bark alert unless unless he is certain.
But they could have been rubbing together and we know from Grime and from science that cadaver odour can be transferred by contact from one item to another.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 01:25:20 PM
The clothes were not laid out in the underground car park.
Was Amaral lying, in his book, then?
"The soft toy and all the clothes from the house are placed into boxes specially made to preserve evidence. These objects are then conveyed to the decontaminated premises. They are placed on the ground, a good distance apart for the dogs to examine. At 8pm, Tavares de Almeida calls me to let me know that Mark Harrison requires another place because this one is not sufficiently clean.- How do I find a place at this kind of time?- Sort it out! Julio Barroso offers us the new sports hall in Lagos which, finally, meets the required standards. The objects are once again laid out on the ground and the dogs can start. Eddie alerts us to a strong cadaver odour on some of Kate's clothes, but the CSI dog doesn't detect the slightest trace of blood."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 01:27:23 PM
Had the case ever come to trial the gym and the underground car park fiascos would have been laughed out of court.
Totally agree. The videos are foul of schoolboy errors and they contradict Grime's notes which were not contemporaneous but written later- very bad practice.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 01:28:08 PM
But they could have been rubbing together and we know from Grime and from science that cadaver odour can be transferred by contact from one item to another.
There's only one missing person is this case and possible human cadaver. The dogs alerted inside the apartment she went missing from. The first alert was NO BLOOD by Eddie.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2015, 01:28:39 PM
But they could have been rubbing together and we know from Grime and from science that cadaver odour can be transferred by contact from one item to another.
The odour would need to come from somewhere in the first place.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 01:31:42 PM
The Portuguese were totally overwhelmed by this investigation, the screenings in the gym and the car park were chaotic, arranged on the spur of the moment with little thought being given to the way in which the test items were handled. A unmitigated shambles.
Agreed
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2015, 01:39:07 PM
The Portuguese were totally overwhelmed by this investigation, the screenings in the gym and the car park were chaotic, arranged on the spur of the moment with little thought being given to the way in which the test items were handled. A unmitigated shambles.
Were they not following guidance from the British on this?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2015, 01:40:48 PM
Were they not following guidance from the British on this?
They were following Grime.
He was responsible for how the search was carried out and how it was recorded.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 01:44:28 PM
Has science shown yet why errors in alerts.... due to contaminants.... blood or non-blood, present at all investigation sites are not occurring on a continual basis, anywhere and everywhere.....rendering deployment of the dogs a waste of time?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 01:52:47 PM
Has science shown yet why errors in alerts.... due to contaminants.... blood or non-blood, present at all investigation sites are not occurring on a continual basis, anywhere and everywhere.....rendering deployment of the dogs a waste of time?
Excellent question where why the dog believers claim seems not to accord with science or reality - they make mutually exclusive claims at different times.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 01:54:14 PM
That is rather a sweeping generalistion about Carew which would presuppose you know the identity and profession of that particular poster. Even to say "well I can tell by the posts" would imply you had eliminated the possibility that the poster was a wise man taking the piss which would presuppose you knew for sure he wasn't. That would leave one wondering.
Not to worry...........The flow of supporter prose must go unchecked, otherwise attempted put-downs of all sorts ensue.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 02:03:34 PM
So what about the Transference of Odour? Not that I think that any of the dog's searches are of any importance.
If you were holding a cadaver in your hands and then you held CC in your hands that would be a transfer of odour. Any clothes that was in direct contact with a cadaver would be contaminated and Eddie would alert to those items.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2015, 02:05:04 PM
If you were holding a cadaver in your hands and then you held CC in your hands that would be a transfer of odour. Any clothes that was in direct contact with a cadaver would be contaminated and Eddie would alert to those items.
And any clothes in contact with first said clothes would also be contaminated.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: DCI on May 05, 2015, 02:05:20 PM
The Portuguese were totally overwhelmed by this investigation, the screenings in the gym and the car park were chaotic, arranged on the spur of the moment with little thought being given to the way in which the test items were handled. A unmitigated shambles.
Shambles is correct, Admin.
58 mins, on. Clothes being laid out, dragged on floor to move across. It's been cut and doesn't now show boxes and suitcases being unpacked.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 02:08:42 PM
And any clothes in contact with first said clothes would also be contaminated.
If somebody did die in that apartment they had to touch the body and if they moved it or cradled the body in their arms their clothes would be contaminated.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 05, 2015, 02:10:34 PM
If somebody did die in that apartment they had to touch the body and if they moved it or cradled the body in their arms their clothes would be contaminated.
So contamination or transference only goes as far as you want it to.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 02:13:43 PM
Excellent question where why the dog believers claim seems not to accord with science or reality - they make mutually exclusive claims at different times.
We have the apparently perfectly acceptable Cherry Pickers` Convention claims of ...........
Handler cuing and bias, Cross contamination, % error, Expectation of Result, Handler/ Investigator Combined Wicked Agenda, Downright Naughty Toy-Grabbing Doggie, playing on the job! Nosebleeds or Shaving Haemorrhages past and present Deceased Previous Owner`s Deathbed Pyjamas Expectation of reward by the dog if he alerts............and all the rest and on it goes.
We`ve had them all.......
Take your pick.........If one rationalisation doesn`t explain an alert away, another will.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 02:16:26 PM
Has science shown yet why errors in alerts.... due to contaminants.... blood or non-blood, present at all investigation sites are not occurring on a continual basis, anywhere and everywhere.....rendering deployment of the dogs a waste of time?
The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they? In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't. Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2015, 02:21:26 PM
Why should a dog-handler be biased? What benefit is gained by encouraging a dog to respond to a non-existent scent?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 02:22:11 PM
I can only go on his analysis of the evidence which is patently unscientific.
Which doesn't address my second option of taking the p**s.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 02:24:43 PM
Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa in G5A. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Eddie and Keela alerted to the car hired by the McCanns. Samples were taken and DNA was found. It's pretty certain that Keela was alerting to blood as that's what she was trained to do.
Eddie alerted to the main bedroom in G5A and to some clothes and a toy. Keela did not alert. As he was correct in his other alerts it's quite possible that he was correct with these alerts also.
No proof of anything was found by forensic analysis, but the alerts shouldn't be ruled out completely. They are an indication which, taken with other indications, could suggest a direction for investigation. Therefore they could be significant.
The question is; why are some people so determined to discredit these dogs and their handler and rule out the dog's alerts completely? Methinks they protest too much.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 02:24:50 PM
The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they? In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't. Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?
That is complete rubbish! MG doesn't instruct Eddie to alert. He is trained not to bark. Look at the first alert in this case. Eddie alone alerted at the wardrobe and it had nothing to to do with MG. He directs the search and knows his dog. Eddie is the one that barks not MG 8(0(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 02:27:47 PM
Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa in G5A. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Eddie and Keela alerted to the car hired by the McCanns. Samples were taken and DNA was found. It's pretty certain that Keela was alerting to blood as that's what she was trained to do.
Eddie alerted to the main bedroom in G5A and to some clothes and a toy. Keela did not alert. As he was correct in his other alerts it's quite possible that he was correct with these alerts also.
No proof of anything was found by forensic analysis, but the alerts shouldn't be ruled out completely. They are an indication which, taken with other indications, could suggest a direction for investigation. Therefore they could be significant.
The question is; why are some people so determined to discredit these dogs and their handler and rule out the dog's alerts completely? Methinks they protest too much.
Similarly one could ask - why so defensive about the dog alerts? Why not accept that the dogs and their handlers are not infallible and mistakes can occur. Time to read the link in my sig line now if you haven't already done so.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 02:29:13 PM
That is complete rubbish! MG doesn't instruct Eddie to alert. He is trained not to bark. Look at the first alert in this case. Eddie alone alerted at the wardrobe and it had nothing to to do with MG. He directs the search and knows his dog. Eddie is the one that barks not MG 8(0(*
It's complete rubbish is it? In which case perhaps you can offer Carew an explanation as to why the dog isn't permanently alerting all over the place all day, every day from morn until night? Is it kept in a sterile environment until deployed?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 02:33:51 PM
It's complete rubbish is it? In which case perhaps you can offer Carew an explanation as to why the dog isn't permanently alerting all over the place all day, every day from morn until night? Is it kept in a sterile environment until deployed?
Because they are trained every day of their lives and know how to their job properly. These dogs are looking for evidence of a body not a razor cut in the bathroom.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2015, 02:34:28 PM
The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they? In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't. Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?
Pretty much like any tool I guess. So if we extend that logically any tool, in the wider sense of the word, operator is guilty of "handler" bias because he is in control of the operator interface. A novel concept if I may say so.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 05, 2015, 02:40:33 PM
Similarly the key fob to the car was put into a bucket of sand for a confirmation test and both dogs alerted to it again.
Hate to be pedantic but sometimes the devil is in the detail ... the key fob wasn't put into the bucket of sand ... it was but underneath the box which contained sand.
**snip At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle?s key had been hidden.
**snip At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.
Similarly one could ask - why so defensive about the dog alerts? Why not accept that the dogs and their handlers are not infallible and mistakes can occur. Time to read the link in my sig line now if you haven't already done so.
Rather than trawl the internet to prove my point I am limiting myself to this case and these dogs. The dogs were correct in two alerts. You cannot disprove that no matter how many articles you quote. Why should Eddie's other alerts be discounted therefore? He could have been wrong, but equally he could have been right. I don't know and neither does anyone else. When and if living child is found we will all know.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 02:51:40 PM
Because they are trained every day of their lives and know how to their job properly. These dogs are looking for evidence of a body not a razor cut in the bathroom.
Are the dogs psychic then? They know when they are meant to be looking for blood and bits of body and they know when to pipe down without anyone having to tell them?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 02:52:34 PM
Rather than trawl the internet to prove my point I am limiting myself to this case and these dogs. The dogs were correct in two alerts. You cannot disprove that no matter how many articles you quote. Why should Eddie's other alerts be discounted therefore? He could have been wrong, but equally he could have been right. I don't know and neither does anyone else. When and if living child is found we will all know.
I still don't understand your basis for saying "The dogs were correct in two alerts." How can you possibly know that in the absence of any corroborating forensic evidence?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 05, 2015, 02:57:25 PM
I still don't understand your basis for saying "The dogs were correct in two alerts." How can you possibly know that in the absence of any corroborating forensic evidence?
Doh, they found blood.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 02:59:14 PM
Pretty much like any tool I guess. So if we extend that logically any tool, in the wider sense of the word, operator is guilty of "handler" bias because he is in control of the operator interface. A novel concept if I may say so.
What part of dog handler bias do you struggle with Alice? Are you denying that it exists?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 05, 2015, 03:02:00 PM
Are the dogs psychic then? They know when they are meant to be looking for blood and bits of body and they know when to pipe down without anyone having to tell them?
Evident from the video is Martin Grime making the dog sit before cuing him to start ... the dog then adopts 'sniffer mode' to start work.
Evident from the video is Martin Grime standing his dog down by making him sit ... the dog then knows, no more sniffing required, job done. Simples.
I believe the only deviation from this procedure might have been when the team were entering apartment 5A.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 03:02:34 PM
Rather than trawl the internet to prove my point I am limiting myself to this case and these dogs. The dogs were correct in two alerts. You cannot disprove that no matter how many articles you quote. Why should Eddie's other alerts be discounted therefore? He could have been wrong, but equally he could have been right. I don't know and neither does anyone else. When and if living child is found we will all know.
So you're only giving them a 50/50 chance of being right? OK fair enough. Incidentally Madeleine's remains could be found tomorrow and it wouldn't prove the dogs right.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 03:03:08 PM
I still don't understand your basis for saying "The dogs were correct in two alerts." How can you possibly know that in the absence of any corroborating forensic evidence?
Eddie alerted behind the couch in G5A and to the car. Keela also alerted. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Finding DNA in the samples means the dog alerts were correct. Forensic analysis was not able to say what the substance sampled was, but as Keela alerts to blood and only blood we can assume that the substance was blood. If the alerts were due to 'bias' please tell me how Grime knew where the samples were going to be found?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 03:08:55 PM
Eddie alerted behind the couch in G5A and to the car. Keela also alerted. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Finding DNA in the samples means the dog alerts were correct. Forensic analysis was not able to say what the substance sampled was, but as Keela alerts to blood and only blood we can assume that the substance was blood. If the alerts were due to 'bias' please tell me how Grime knew where the samples were going to be found?
Why would "Finding DNA in the samples means the dog alerts were correct"? If they'd examined any other area in the apartment, they'd have found DNA samples as well. Sorry, I'm not following the logic.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 03:15:11 PM
Hate to be pedantic but sometimes the devil is in the detail ... the key fob wasn't put into the bucket of sand ... it was but underneath the box which contained sand.
**snip At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle?s key had been hidden.
**snip At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand. At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle. At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
Are the dogs psychic then? They know when they are meant to be looking for blood and bits of body and they know when to pipe down without anyone having to tell them?
They work as a team. Eddie finds cadaver scent. Keela confirms if blood is there or not.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 03:18:58 PM
They work as a team. Eddie finds cadaver scent. Keela confirms if blood is there or not.
Tell me something I don't know. What PROMPTS them to start searching for blood and cadaver? What PREVENTS them from alerting to blood and cadaver scent when "off-duty"?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2015, 03:21:09 PM
Perhaps they do - its not as if they are going to be in contact with these things all day, every day
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 03:24:13 PM
Tell me something I don't know. What PROMPTS them to start searching for blood and cadaver? What PREVENTS them from alerting to blood and cadaver scent when "off-duty"?
What has that got to do with this case. Maybe they like to play when their not working. Eddie would bark if he was out somewhere not working and detected that death scent. He has been trained to do it!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 05, 2015, 03:27:45 PM
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand. At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle. At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
Think about it very carefully.
The key fob was evidence which was to be bagged and sent off for forensic testing.
Are you seriously suggesting the PJ deliberately buried it in sand and risked contamination?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2015, 03:28:13 PM
Because they are trained every day of their lives and know how to their job properly. These dogs are looking for evidence of a body not a razor cut in the bathroom.
The dogs are not on duty 24/7. They go to work when directed by their owner. When they are not working they behave and are treated like any other dog. However - they have no idea they are 'working' in the way we know they are.
They are not looking for evidence - they are searching for a particular smell and if they find it they will be rewarded. That is the limit of their interest and involvement. They have no idea they are doing a 'job'. It's basically a game which they enjoy because all dogs love pleasing their owners and love rewards. I can assure you that neither Eddie or Keela even knew what a policeman was - let alone know they were part of a 'case'.
AIMHO.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 03:35:35 PM
The dogs are not on duty 24/7. They go to work when directed by their owner. When they are not working they behave and are treated like any other dog. However - they have no idea they are 'working' in the way we know they are.
They are not looking for evidence - they are searching for a particular smell and if they find it they will be rewarded. That is the limit of their interest and involvement. They have no idea they are doing a 'job'. It's basically a game which they enjoy because all dogs love pleasing their owners and love rewards. I can assure you that neither Eddie or Keela even knew what a policeman was - let alone know they were part of a 'case'.
AIMHO.
Might be 'just' your opinion, Benice, but very well thought out and explained as well as being an informed one ... and in my opinion ... absolutely spot on!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2015, 03:41:21 PM
I seems to me that in the research quoted handlers were led to believe that there was a scent where the visible marker was and could therefore indicate this to the dog. In a real life situation, there would be no such visible marker and therefore no indication could be given to the dog.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 03:48:50 PM
I seems to me that in the research quoted handlers were led to believe that there was a scent where the visible marker was and could therefore indicate this to the dog. In a real life situation, there would be no such visible marker and therefore no indication could be given to the dog.
That is exactly the point.
There was no scent anywhere.
When there was a visible marker which the handlers knew about, the dogs alerted there.
This was because the unconscious tells were picked up by the dogs and they reacted.
There is no other rational explanation for why the dogs alerted only where their trainers believed there to be scent.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 03:51:21 PM
I seems to me that in the research quoted handlers were led to believe that there was a scent where the visible marker was and could therefore indicate this to the dog. In a real life situation, there would be no such visible marker and therefore no indication could be given to the dog.
The handlers were made aware of where they thought the scent should be detected by the use of markers. Grime's equivalent 'markers' were when he was made aware that 5a was the McCanns apartment and that the Renault was their car.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: jassi on May 05, 2015, 03:53:29 PM
I realise what the point was, but in a real life situation there would be no visible marker to trigger a cue. Was the experiment repeated without any visible markers, I wonder?
In an experiment such as described, it is in the handler's interest to cue a reaction - his dog passes the test. There is no such self interest in a real situation
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 05, 2015, 03:54:21 PM
The handlers were made aware of where they thought the scent should be detected by the use of markers. Grime's equivalent 'markers' were when he was made aware that 5a was the McCanns apartment and that the Renault was their car.
So why behind the couch? How did he know to put the dogs there?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 03:55:02 PM
The dogs are not on duty 24/7. They go to work when directed by their owner. When they are not working they behave and are treated like any other dog. However - they have no idea they are 'working' in the way we know they are.
They are not looking for evidence - they are searching for a particular smell and if they find it they will be rewarded. That is the limit of their interest and involvement. They have no idea they are doing a 'job'. It's basically a game which they enjoy because all dogs love pleasing their owners and love rewards. I can assure you that neither Eddie or Keela even knew what a policeman was - let alone know they were part of a 'case'.
AIMHO.
Do you feel, then, that it is the particular smell which prompts the dog to alert , rather than the cue of the handler at individual sites or items?
What "reward" did the handler give the dog during the searches in relation to each alert?
Are you suggesting that anticipation of a reward at the end of the days work or at some time in the future will prompt the dog to alert during a search?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 03:56:01 PM
I realise what the point was, but in a real life situation there would be no visible marker to trigger a cue. Was the experiment repeated without any visible markers, I wonder?
In an experiment such as described, it is in the handler's interest to cue a reaction - his dog passes the test. There is no such self interest in a real situation
FFS read the research. There were four conditions including no markers and no scents. IIRC they also excluded dogs visually cuing the red patches.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 03:56:56 PM
Tell me something I don't know. What PROMPTS them to start searching for blood and cadaver? What PREVENTS them from alerting to blood and cadaver scent when "off-duty"?
There must be some kind of signal to tell them that they are on work duty otherwise they'd yap all day.
Are the specific commands only used when working?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 03:57:50 PM
Do you feel, then, that it is the particular smell which prompts the dog to alert , rather than the cue of the handler at individual sites or items?
What "reward" did the handler give the dog during the searches in relation to each alert?
Are you suggesting that anticipation of a reward at the end of the days work or at some time in the future will prompt the dog to alert during a search?
Dogs do react correctly to the correct scent most of the time. But the experiment shows that they will also alert when their handlers merely believe that the scent is there.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 03:58:48 PM
I realise what the point was, but in a real life situation there would be no visible marker to trigger a cue. Was the experiment repeated without any visible markers, I wonder?
In an experiment such as described, it is in the handler's interest to cue a reaction - his dog passes the test. There is no such self interest in a real situation
Cueing can be be unconscious - IOW the handler doesn't know he's doing it. But dogs are brilliant at picking up the slightest change in body language - just as cleverly as they can detect minute odours.
Unconscious cueing is certainly not a crime - but it is something which can creep in over time purely due to the closeness which exists between a dog and his trainer.
I believe one of the objects of the tests was to find ways of reducing the chances of this happening.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 04:08:35 PM
Of course they only react when tasked to. That is part of their training.
Which does not really explain why alerts to contaminants present at most sites when tasked to do not render their deployment a waste of time, due to persistent alerting to residual pork products / old blood / bodily fluids etc.
We are led to believe that such contaminants may have been the cause of "Alerts McCann"
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: John on May 05, 2015, 04:12:40 PM
I still don't understand your basis for saying "The dogs were correct in two alerts." How can you possibly know that in the absence of any corroborating forensic evidence?
That's what it comes down to and as Martin Grime stated on many occasions, the dog alerts alone have no evidential reliability without corroborative forensic evidence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 04:16:31 PM
Which does not really explain why alerts to contaminants present at most sites when tasked to do not render their deployment a waste of time, due to persistent alerting to residual pork products / old blood / bodily fluids etc.
We are led to believe that such contaminants may have been the cause of "Alerts McCann"
Actually we are told by Martin Grime that the presence of a dead body at a spot where an alert had been made is not the only reason for an alert. If the alert is corroborated by the body being found - or a confession being made etc. then the dog WAS alerting to a dead body, but if no body is found then the other reasons for an alert which he mentions cannot be discounted.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 04:23:07 PM
Actually we are told by Martin Grime that the presence of a dead body at a spot where an alert had been made is not the only reason for an alert. If the alert is corroborated by the body being found - or a confession being made etc. then the dog WAS alerting to a dead body, but if no body is found then the other reasons for an alert which he mentions cannot be discounted.
With respect.............that doesn`t address the point about "why no continual alerts whilst on task."
I know what Martin Grime said.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lace on May 05, 2015, 04:33:17 PM
The problems I have with the alert by Eddie are that Mr. Grime had to call Eddie back numerous times before he finally barked. Also Eddie was trained as a rescue dog to start with and so could have smelt the scent of blood if something had been put in the wardrobe or on the floor with blood on it and then removed, Eddie could still be smelling the scent from it, especially as 5a had been shut up and it was warm weather.
If anyone can show me Eddie being called back numerous times in any of the other apartments then I might reconsider what I think.
Eddie was also very hot, he was panting running around. I have read that Cadaver dogs should not be hot or tired as the dog will alert in order to please and be able to rest.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 04:34:31 PM
With respect.............that doesn`t address the point about "why no continual alerts whilst on task."
I know what Martin Grime said.
Only Martin Grime can answer your question - it is his contention that his dogs could alert to the tiniest traces of residual scent being insitu- even after washing or after decades had passed.
IMO the dogs would most probably have alerted in other cars and other apartments had they been given the same time to search as in McCann related places - because I simply can't believe that a drop of blood had never been spilt in any of those other places during previous years.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lace on May 05, 2015, 04:37:30 PM
A point in which a dog is able to smell cadaver odour hasn't been established either. The body farm were using bodies that had been dead a while. In order to ascertain when the odour is first picked up by the dog something would have to have been taken from the dead body as soon as that person had died.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 04:44:31 PM
Only Martin Grime can answer your question - it is his contention that his dogs could alert to the tiniest traces of residual scent being insitu- even after washing or after decades had passed.
IMO the dogs would most probably have alerted in other cars and other apartments had they been given the same time to search as in McCann related places - because I simply can't believe that a drop of blood had never been spilt in any of those other places during previous years.
Hmmmm.............I can`t believe that either.
I had hoped that keen "researchers" would have come up with the reasons why non-stop alerting isn`t wrecking every investigation, everywhere......when so many "alertable" contaminants could be present.
( Enjoyment of Science is in part about finding questions to ask, though.........not just getting answers! )
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 05, 2015, 05:01:42 PM
I had hoped that keen "researchers" would have come up with the reasons why non-stop alerting isn`t wrecking every investigation, everywhere......when so many "alertable" contaminants could be present.
( Enjoyment of Science is in part about finding questions to ask, though.........not just getting answers! )
There are two possibilities IMO. Either we (a) accuse Martin Grime of lying about his dogs abilities or (b) we think of another reason.
I prefer to go for (b) and suggest it is the time factor which prevented multiple alerts.
I remember watching one of those Airport progs where sniffer dogs are used. One dog alerted at a piece of luggage and drugs were found in it. The handler said how pleased she was with her dog - especially at the speed in which the dog alerted on this occasion as sometimes it could take up to 15 mins. before she/he decided to alert.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 05:09:12 PM
An alert by Eddie alone does not indicate cadaver scent.
Yes and there was no blood found at the wardrobe alert or on the clothes. Keela will find blood that the human eye can't see and on weapons after they've been washed.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 06:23:22 PM
What has that got to do with this case. Maybe they like to play when their not working. Eddie would bark if he was out somewhere not working and detected that death scent. He has been trained to do it!
What about when he detects the blood scent, or the multitude of other things that set them off? They must be very noisy dogs to go walkies with, is all I can say.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 06:25:36 PM
I am not struggling with anything sunshine. You seem to want to make something out of my post that wasn't there.
True, I was struggling to find something of substance in it to comment on. But whilst you're on, what's your view of the research that I have linked to in my sig line? Do you accept handler bias can be a factor in causing dogs to alert erroneously? If you could give a straight answer rather than a riddle-me-ree retort it would be appreciated.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 06:28:08 PM
Yes and there was no blood found at the wardrobe alert or on the clothes. Keela will find blood that the human eye can't see and on weapons after they've been washed.
Eddie also reacts to minute traces of blood. That is why a single alert by him is not indicative of cadaver, but cadaver and/or blood.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 07:04:07 PM
We have certain sceptics here who simply won't accept this is true - I wonder why...? &%+((£
I wonder why no "handler bias" resulting in an alert anywhere in the McCann bathroom?..........Eddie was certainly tasked and directed around it..........and it was highly likely the expectation of traces of bodily fluid might be present.
All sorts to wonder about. &%+((£
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 07:10:42 PM
I wonder why no "handler bias" resulting in an alert anywhere in the McCann bathroom?..........Eddie was certainly tasked and directed around it..........and it was highly likely the expectation of traces of bodily fluid might be present.
All sorts to wonder about. &%+((£
You said it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2015, 07:20:09 PM
True, I was struggling to find something of substance in it to comment on. But whilst you're on, what's your view of the research that I have linked to in my sig line? Do you accept handler bias can be a factor in causing dogs to alert erroneously? If you could give a straight answer rather than a riddle-me-ree retort it would be appreciated.
My view on the article you have linked is that there is abundant use of words like possible and might. Even the authors state "should be expanded to give a better understanding of cues handlers might be giving" or something of that general sense. "Clever Hans" seems to be the latest buzz word although his story is well known in the annals of animal cognition and observer-expectancy effect. [I know how to put it in a sentence but haven't a bleedin' clue what it means; but then I guess I am not alone there]. Now to answer your question 8(0(*. the answer was posted on the "Science Thread" a while ago.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 07:23:06 PM
My view on the article you have linked is that there is abundant use of words like possible and might. Even the authors state "should be expanded to give a better understanding of cues handlers might be giving" or something of that general sense. "Clever Hans" seems to be the latest buzz word although his story is well known in the annals of animal cognition and observer-expectancy effect. [I know how to put it in a sentence but haven't a bleedin' clue what it means; but then I guess I am not alone there]. Now to answer your question 8(0(*. the answer was posted on the "Science Thread" a while ago.
I didn't think I'd get a straight answer. This from the link seems pretty unequivocal however:
"The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present".
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 05, 2015, 07:48:52 PM
Applied to the case on topic, though............there seems to be no "handler belief" at all that a scent would be located in the McCann bathroom......half-hearted "belief" in a slight whiff outside the balcony...........and quite considerable "handler belief" that a boy`s t-shirt would hit the jackpot. 8)-)))
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2015, 07:49:09 PM
I didn't think I'd get a straight answer. This from the link seems pretty unequivocal however:
"The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present".
Well old son to paraphrase your comment to Faithlilly earlier....now remind me what was it you said?. 200 times sounds a lot. My first reaction on reading the article was 200 out of how many. I didn't find out how many. Do you know? So you think the author's statement that more work needs to be done to clarify certain things, like "operator intervention", is not relevant or even suggestive that a firm conclusion cannot properly be reached. It matters not anyway as long as it is recognised as a possible phenomenon by the operator.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 07:58:16 PM
I wonder why no "handler bias" resulting in an alert anywhere in the McCann bathroom?..........Eddie was certainly tasked and directed around it..........and it was highly likely the expectation of traces of bodily fluid might be present.
All sorts to wonder about. &%+((£
And maybe Grime did not emit a tell.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 08:39:50 PM
Well old son to paraphrase your comment to Faithlilly earlier....now remind me what was it you said?. 200 times sounds a lot. My first reaction on reading the article was 200 out of how many. I didn't find out how many. Do you know? So you think the author's statement that more work needs to be done to clarify certain things, like "operator intervention", is not relevant or even suggestive that a firm conclusion cannot properly be reached. It matters not anyway as long as it is recognised as a possible phenomenon by the operator.
I don't suppose you're that interested but on the off chance that you are may I refer you to this... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 05, 2015, 08:54:37 PM
A point in which a dog is able to smell cadaver odour hasn't been established either. The body farm were using bodies that had been dead a while. In order to ascertain when the odour is first picked up by the dog something would have to have been taken from the dead body as soon as that person had died.
Attracta Harron's body lay in a room for only 1 hour before disposal and Eddie alerted to it months later.
'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''
Cross-contamination is immediate.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 09:01:36 PM
It also depends how long since the moment of death.
So if SY find proof that she's dead and that she died inside that apartment then it wasn't by the hands of a stranger who would have quickly removed the body because Eddie wouldn't alert. Is that what your saying?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2015, 09:56:39 PM
I don't suppose you're that interested but on the off chance that you are may I refer you to this... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/
It is interesting but consider this position. I buy an instrument to measure anything you care to name. I know that it is not 100% accurate because nothing can be. It will have an inaccuracy on reading and on full scale deflection. If I know this [it will be stipulated] I can allow for it in any computation I care to make. I am going to use the instrument in two capacities; as a measuring device and as a comparator. As the measuring device the inaccuracies are important to know as a comparator the inaccuracies do not matter in real terms. That's how things work. The fact that something may not be 100% accurate, because it can't be any way, is not important provided the degree of of inaccuracy can be reasonably allowed for in analysis.See my post on the other thread.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 10:00:32 PM
So if SY find proof that she's dead and that she died inside that apartment then it wasn't by the hands of a stranger who would have quickly removed the body because Eddie wouldn't alert. Is that what your saying?
No, what makes you think I'm saying any of that?!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Admin on May 05, 2015, 10:01:22 PM
It also depends how long since the moment of death.
The experiment you highlight in your signature is most interesting Alfred. The article certainly puts a lot of what we have previously heard about CSI dogs into context. I would agree that we mostly hear about the success of these dogs and rarely hear of their failures.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 05, 2015, 10:02:08 PM
It is interesting but consider this position. I buy an instrument to measure anything you care to name. I know that it is not 100% accurate because nothing can be. It will have an inaccuracy on reading and on full scale deflection. If I know this [it will be stipulated] I can allow for it in any computation I care to make. I am going to use the instrument in two capacities; as a measuring device and as a comparator. As the measuring device the inaccuracies are important to know as a comparator the inaccuracies do not matter in real terms. That's how things work. The fact that something may not be 100% accurate, because it can't be any way, is not important provided the degree of of inaccuracy can be reasonably allowed for in analysis.See my post on the other thread.
no one...including Grime...knows what significance those alerts have...I would say that is a fact
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 05, 2015, 10:05:12 PM
It is interesting but consider this position. I buy an instrument to measure anything you care to name. I know that it is not 100% accurate because nothing can be. It will have an inaccuracy on reading and on full scale deflection. If I know this [it will be stipulated] I can allow for it in any computation I care to make. I am going to use the instrument in two capacities; as a measuring device and as a comparator. As the measuring device the inaccuracies are important to know as a comparator the inaccuracies do not matter in real terms. That's how things work. The fact that something may not be 100% accurate, because it can't be any way, is not important provided the degree of of inaccuracy can be reasonably allowed for in analysis.See my post on the other thread.
And you accuse OxfordBloo of wordy bs. @)(++(*
What do you make of the 45 incorrect alerts by Zampo in the case of the swedish serial killer that never was? How do you apply what you have written above to his woeful performance?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 10:20:11 PM
It is interesting but consider this position. I buy an instrument to measure anything you care to name. I know that it is not 100% accurate because nothing can be. It will have an inaccuracy on reading and on full scale deflection. If I know this [it will be stipulated] I can allow for it in any computation I care to make. I am going to use the instrument in two capacities; as a measuring device and as a comparator. As the measuring device the inaccuracies are important to know as a comparator the inaccuracies do not matter in real terms. That's how things work. The fact that something may not be 100% accurate, because it can't be any way, is not important provided the degree of of inaccuracy can be reasonably allowed for in analysis.See my post on the other thread.
I remember that from a course I did on scientific measurement.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 05, 2015, 10:42:13 PM
Eddie alerted behind the couch in G5A and to the car. Keela also alerted. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Finding DNA in the samples means the dog alerts were correct. Forensic analysis was not able to say what the substance sampled was, but as Keela alerts to blood and only blood we can assume that the substance was blood. If the alerts were due to 'bias' please tell me how Grime knew where the samples were going to be found?
I don't get the logic of that. The area where Keela alerted was tested for biological residue (with some DNA found as a result of lab analysis). Fine, so far, so good. But how does anyone know whether the other walls had biological residue on them? They weren't tested, were they? I would have thought that a normal dwelling would have traces of biological material all over the place.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 05, 2015, 11:43:58 PM
What do you make of the 45 incorrect alerts by Zampo in the case of the swedish serial killer that never was? How do you apply what you have written above to his woeful performance?
Probably a poorly calibrated instrument ?{)(** If a Swedish geezer has an instrument that is defective that is no reason for me to believe a similar instrument I am using is also defective. I would calibrate my instrument as a matter of course at regular intervals. Ya'll seem to be getting into a muck sweat over doggies. I have already said [elsewhere on this forum] that I believe if a dog alerts there are three possibilities one of which has two separate sub divisions. The usefulness of the data being variable from "gotcha" to "about as helpful as teats on a boar". I don't happen to think dogs are a synthesis of Billy Batson and Paul Metcalfe. Nor do I subscribe to the theory they are by definition useless.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2015, 01:54:35 AM
On his profile, he gives as his base his home address in Oxford.
And unlike in the second enquiry, where we have seen actual UK police officers working on the ground in Portugal, wearing their police-officer uniforms, Grime never wore his, with good reason.
It is an offence to imitate a police officer if you are not one.
In Portugal during the (now shelved) initial Madeleine investigation, Grime was not a serving UK police officer.
You will have to prove that Mr Grime was not employed by the police when he was in Portugal. In attempting to doing so and cover your libel, you will have to prove he lied consistently in all his police statements and also committed a secondary criminal offence of pretending to be a police officer.
How Admin and moderators here allow such posts is shocking at the very best.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2015, 02:16:32 AM
It's perfectly true that the word blood does not feature once in John Lowe's report ...
Can you let Brietta know? She is under the misconception that PJ officers blood was on the walls in the living room, I asked her for a cite but she told me to read Lowes report, which I did, and still found none, thanks
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2015, 02:19:41 AM
You will have to prove that Mr Grime was not employed by the police when he was in Portugal. In attempting to doing so and cover your libel, you will have to prove he lied consistently in all his police statements and also committed a secondary criminal offence of pretending to be a police officer.
How Admin and moderators here allow such posts is shocking at the very best.
His retirement date is a matter of record- the end of July. Also on record is the fact that he was on long leave before retirement for the time he was in PdL. He was fully retired (and the dogs were unaccredited) when he went to Jersey.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2015, 08:04:47 AM
Probably a poorly calibrated instrument ?{)(** If a Swedish geezer has an instrument that is defective that is no reason for me to believe a similar instrument I am using is also defective. I would calibrate my instrument as a matter of course at regular intervals. Ya'll seem to be getting into a muck sweat over doggies. I have already said [elsewhere on this forum] that I believe if a dog alerts there are three possibilities one of which has two separate sub divisions. The usefulness of the data being variable from "gotcha" to "about as helpful as teats on a boar". I don't happen to think dogs are a synthesis of Billy Batson and Paul Metcalfe. Nor do I subscribe to the theory they are by definition useless.
I don't happen to believe that dogs that falsely alert can be described as defective, I think that is somewhat unfair. No one here is dissing the dogs (as you seem to be doing) merely stating that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2015, 09:50:26 AM
I don't happen to believe that dogs that falsely alert can be described as defective, I think that is somewhat unfair. No one here is dissing the dogs (as you seem to be doing) merely stating that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches.
You asked me how I accounted for the "woeful" performance of a woofer on a job in Scandawegia did you not? I gave one possible reason. OK so if we consider this as an instrument loop it has two components man and dog and a loop "communication" medium. If the loop is consistently incorrect there are several potential causes. The signal from the dog to the man is incorrect; the signal from the man to the dog is incorrect; the dog is defective; the man is defective; the wiring[communication medium] is defective. All are possible, I fail to understand why you are labouring just one particular reason out of several, then attributing to me things I did not say. What precisely is your point about operator bias other than it is a recognised phenomenon?. So if a doggy is cued by his handler and finds a piece of evidence that is upheld by further examination and tests is that piece of evidence nullified by the dog being subjected to operator bias?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 06, 2015, 10:00:17 AM
You asked me how I accounted for the "woeful" performance of a woofer on a job in Scandawegia did you not? I gave one possible reason. OK so if we consider this as an instrument loop it has two components man and dog and a loop "communication" medium. If the loop is consistently incorrect there are several potential causes. The signal from the dog to the man is incorrect; the signal from the man to the dog is incorrect; the dog is defective; the man is defective; the wiring[communication medium] is defective. All are possible, I fail to understand why you are labouring just one particular reason out of several, then attributing to me things I did not say. What precisely is your point about operator bias other than it is a recognised phenomenon?. So if a doggy is cued by his handler and finds a piece of evidence that is upheld by further examination and tests is that piece of evidence nullified by the dog being subjected to operator bias?
If, challenged on the findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault Scenic, do you suppose Grime would retort with the lame, dogs can't read?
Or would he come up with something better?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2015, 10:07:36 AM
If, challenged on the findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault Scenic, do you suppose Grime would retort with the lame, dogs can't read?
Or would he come up with something better?
I think Martin Grimes was incredibly lucky. What with sub-standard dogs and handler cuing he still managed to persuade them to alert in the correct places; where forensics found DNA. I bet he breathed a sigh of relief at that. @)(++(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2015, 10:11:30 AM
If, challenged on the findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault Scenic, do you suppose Grime would retort with the lame, dogs can't read?
Or would he come up with something better?
I wasn't talking about Grime I was talking about the Scandawegian effort Alf asked me about. I would neither know what Grime would say nor even hazard a guess.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2015, 10:29:15 AM
Can you let Brietta know? She is under the misconception that PJ officers blood was on the walls in the living room, I asked her for a cite but she told me to read Lowes report, which I did, and still found none, thanks
Don't be so silly ... I have never asserted police contamination of the walls in apartment 5A for the simple reason there was none in that place and I am sure you are as familiar with the FSS report as any ... disingenuous of you to put words in my mouth however.
Had Keela been introduced to the areas of interest shown by Eddie in the other apartments and the same amount of time and encouragement given as in 5A to both dogs, who knows what other alerts might have been produced for the video?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 10:32:58 AM
I think Martin Grimes was incredibly lucky. What with sub-standard dogs and handler cuing he still managed to persuade them to alert in the correct places; where forensics found DNA. I bet he breathed a sigh of relief at that. @)(++(*
I still don't follow. I don't see what is unusual in finding DNA in the only place you look for any following an indication that there might be useful evidence in that location. As it happens, there wasn't anything of interest found.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 06, 2015, 10:45:05 AM
You asked me how I accounted for the "woeful" performance of a woofer on a job in Scandawegia did you not? I gave one possible reason. OK so if we consider this as an instrument loop it has two components man and dog and a loop "communication" medium. If the loop is consistently incorrect there are several potential causes. The signal from the dog to the man is incorrect; the signal from the man to the dog is incorrect; the dog is defective; the man is defective; the wiring[communication medium] is defective. All are possible, I fail to understand why you are labouring just one particular reason out of several, then attributing to me things I did not say. What precisely is your point about operator bias other than it is a recognised phenomenon?. So if a doggy is cued by his handler and finds a piece of evidence that is upheld by further examination and tests is that piece of evidence nullified by the dog being subjected to operator bias?
a) what things did I attribute to you that you did not say? b) read my post again, I made my point precisely which is - that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches. So, if we can accept that neither dogs nor their handlers are infallible for reasons such as unconscious handler bias we can begin to understand how it is possible that dog(s) can alert in Apartment 5a & a Hire Car without it necessarily proving that the McCanns dunnit, a concept which a lot of people seem to struggle with. It's really not that complicated!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 11:34:51 AM
From an older thread... although not what I was looking to find again.
(...) 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."
a) what things did I attribute to you that you did not say? b) read my post again, I made my point precisely which is - that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches. So, if we can accept that neither dogs nor their handlers are infallible for reasons such as unconscious handler bias we can begin to understand how it is possible that dog(s) can alert in Apartment 5a & a Hire Car without it necessarily proving that the McCanns dunnit, a concept which a lot of people seem to struggle with. It's really not that complicated!
No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.
Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?
I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2015, 11:44:53 AM
a) what things did I attribute to you that you did not say? b) read my post again, I made my point precisely which is - that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches. So, if we can accept that neither dogs nor their handlers are infallible for reasons such as unconscious handler bias we can begin to understand how it is possible that dog(s) can alert in Apartment 5a & a Hire Car without it necessarily proving that the McCanns dunnit, a concept which a lot of people seem to struggle with. It's really not that complicated!
You implied I was dissing the dogs which was a tad difficult to infer from what I actually said. It isn't complicated and handler bias is but one of a few reasons which may explain what you are describing. I prefer to leave out such emotive terms as McCanns did or didn't dunnit as it tends to cloud peoples judgement on what is essentially a practical consideration of how dogs are deployed, how results are interpreted and their value. It always pays to look well beyond just that which you want to see.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 06, 2015, 11:46:20 AM
No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.
Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?
I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."
Do you mean "belittle" understanding?
Or do you mean highlight misunderstanding?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 06, 2015, 11:50:23 AM
No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.
Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?
I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."
so there is a possibility that cadaver scent may have been in 5a...
we don't need the dogs to tell us that
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 12:10:30 PM
No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.
Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?
I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."
I can only speak for myself, but I can't exclude the possibility that perhaps she wasn't taken out of 5A alive. If ever it was discovered that this was the case, it could mean that the dogs were correct, or that they alerted by chance for undetermined reasons.
I don't object to the possibility. What I object to is that dog alert = dead child, as that hasn't been substantiated and until any conclusive evidence of her demise is found, she is a missing child who may still be alive.
What I object to even more is the simplistic interpretation that dog alert = dead child, therefore necessarily parentswhatdunnit. Case closed.
Sometimes I feel that there is a football match on the pitch of public opinion and Madeleine is the football and I don't find that to be fair to her.
I don't find it fair either for those who knew and loved her, nor do I find it fair for others who were assaulted, nor for potential other victims if one or more perpetrators may still be at large.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2015, 12:15:05 PM
Yes and there was no blood found at the wardrobe alert or on the clothes. Keela will find blood that the human eye can't see and on weapons after they've been washed.
I am going to post what I have posted before, these experts in the field are saying that a cadaver dog could pick up a scent of blood having been where alerted even if the blood is not there any more, so Keela would not have alerted -
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.
edited to add - 5a was let to other families, so it could have been something one of them had left on the floor or in the wardrobe.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2015, 12:18:45 PM
Attracta Harron's body lay in a room for only 1 hour before disposal and Eddie alerted to it months later.
'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''
Cross-contamination is immediate.
When is the cadaver dog able to alert to the smell though? That body had been there about an hour, that doesn't mean the dog could smell it straight away then does it?
Cross contamination might be immediate, but when can a cadaver dog smell it? They don't know.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ferryman on May 06, 2015, 12:36:54 PM
I am going to post what I have posted before, these experts in the field are saying that a cadaver dog could pick up a scent of blood having been where alerted even if the blood is not there any more, so Keela would not have alerted -
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.
edited to add - 5a was let to other families, so it could have been something one of them had left on the floor or in the wardrobe.
Not quite right. There can be nothing at all recoverable for forensic analysis but Keela can still correctly alert to it . The threshold for her detecting the small of blood can be lower than the threshold for the recovery of residue for testing.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2015, 12:51:04 PM
I am going to post what I have posted before, these experts in the field are saying that a cadaver dog could pick up a scent of blood having been where alerted even if the blood is not there any more, so Keela would not have alerted -
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.
edited to add - 5a was let to other families, so it could have been something one of them had left on the floor or in the wardrobe.
As I see it Lace, the problem with the dogs is that on occasion their noses are too good and too sensitive.
It is said by some that dogs do not lie ... unfortunately, neither do they speak.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 06, 2015, 12:56:14 PM
Not quite right. There can be nothing at all recoverable for forensic analysis but Keela can still correctly alert to it . The threshold for her detecting the small of blood can be lower than the threshold for the recovery of residue for testing.
I haven't read anywhere that a blood dog will alert to the scent of blood that isn't there, could you give me a link to that please?
I have read as I pasted the paragraph for pathfinder that a Cadaver dog will still smell the scent of blood even if the object with blood on it is not there, but not a blood dog.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 01:48:38 PM
I haven't read anywhere that a blood dog will alert to the scent of blood that isn't there, could you give me a link to that please?
I have read as I pasted the paragraph for pathfinder that a Cadaver dog will still smell the scent of blood even if the object with blood on it is not there, but not a blood dog.
Grime clearly states that Keela can detect the presence of blood even when in such minute quantities that there is no residue.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Lace on May 06, 2015, 02:22:51 PM
No, but if blood was there but was so minute that it was not recoverable or too small to analyse, then the alert would still be possibly valid.
If though according to part of the article I posted for Pfinder, a bloody hankie or something had been put in the wardrobe or on the floor then taken away, Keela would have had nothing to smell as the blood would have been on the article taken away, yet, Eddie on the other hand would smell the odour and alert, especially if he has been called back numerous times and made to smell the tiles over and over.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 04:53:41 PM
By putting blood as a marker, then investigating if any detritus is left. Then getting the dog to choose where she smells the blood. I ring Grime's claim that this is possible because the main odour of blood is due to its iron content rather than the organic components.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 05:06:55 PM
By putting blood as a marker, then investigating if any detritus is left. Then getting the dog to choose where she smells the blood. I ring Grime's claim that this is possible because the main odour of blood is due to its iron content rather than the organic components.
Possible. But not established as undisputed fact, is it?
I had thought of the possibility of a small blood stain being put through a washing cycle and she still reacted. Did any experiments go beyond that potential one?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: John on May 06, 2015, 05:16:53 PM
Possible. But not established as undisputed fact, is it?
I had thought of the possibility of a small blood stain being put through a washing cycle and she still reacted. Did any experiments go beyond that potential one?
Well there is a choice. Either Keela does react to trace amounts or she makes multiple false alerts as she has alerted many times when no residue was found.
Given that we know from experiments that dogs are usually about eighty per cent correct, that would be surprising.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 06, 2015, 06:32:43 PM
Well there is a choice. Either Keela does react to trace amounts or she makes multiple false alerts as she has alerted many times when no residue was found.
Given that we know from experiments that dogs are usually about eighty per cent correct, that would be surprising.
You claim to have read up on dog handling.
Has this included actual physical experience of handling dogs in this field ?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 06:38:45 PM
No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.
Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?
I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."
This thread asks "were the dog alerts in any way significant?" In order to fully comprehend their significance one needs to understand how accurate they are, and what factors may positively or negatively affect the performance of the dogs. It is therefore not "deflecting" as you put it, but perfectly valid to the discussion, to consider whether or not it is possible that unconscious cueing from the handler had a part to play in the dogs' alerts. I don't struggle with the concept that the dogs may actually have alerted to cadaver odour, and can think of several reasons why cadaver odour may actually have been present in the apartment. Personally, I think the least likely reason for its presence is that it was emitted from the corpse of a small child, and that's where you and I differ in our views on this matter.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 06, 2015, 06:52:09 PM
What physical evidence pointing to Joana's murder was discovered in the house?
Lots and lots. The clothes and shoes she wore to the shop, the food she brought back, the blood stains on the wall, in the fridge and on the shoes, the attempt to cleanse the scene etc...
But the Cipriano case was not determined by physical evidence but on circumstantial evidence and on confessions attributed to both Leonor and her brother João at various stages of the long proceedings.
To remind readers. The mother Leonor originally told the police that she had hit the girl, she had struck her head on a wall and died. She added that her brother João who was in the house at the time carried the girl out back and hid her. Leonor was later unable to find her hiding place.
João for his part claimed that he had hid the body at various locatons but even after police had taken him on several searches no remains were ever found.
Leonor later recanted her confession to murder and claimed that her brother had in fact taken his niece to sell her to some foreigners but that the deal had fallen through. For reasons she has never disclosed the girl ended up dead.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2015, 07:25:31 PM
[quote removed as off topic]
I find it boring to be honest to get deeply into statistical analysis of the probability of false alerts etc., but then I find anything mathematical boring. As for statistics, I'm of the 'Lies, damned lies and statistics' viewpoint.
It matters not what the statistics say imo, because we're not looking at these dogs in general, we're looking at just two specific dogs in a specific case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2015, 07:26:43 PM
Well there is a choice. Either Keela does react to trace amounts or she makes multiple false alerts as she has alerted many times when no residue was found.
Given that we know from experiments that dogs are usually about eighty per cent correct, that would be surprising.
The FBI consider them the best - 80% is nowhere near the best. The dog alerts in this case are significant as SY know! Find a case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the missing person has later turned up alive? 20% of his alerts in cases must be wrong so it will be easy for you to find one. Don't worry the press would have a field day so it should be easy to find. Renowned K9 dog Eddie Alerted to Death Scent but the Missing Person has turned up Alive! Get searching his cases 8)--))
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 07:29:22 PM
The FBI consider them the best - 80% is nowhere near the best. The dog alerts in this case are significant as SY know! Find a case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the missing person has later turned up alive? 20% of his alerts in cases must be wrong so it will be easy for you to find one. Don't worry the press would have a field day so it should be easy to find. Renowned K9 dog Eddie Alerted to Death Scent but the Missing Person has turned up Alive!
You will of course provide cites for each of those statements Except those made by Grime).
Eddie alerted in Jersey. No body ever found.
Try to stand up the FBI quote.
Over to you.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 07:29:55 PM
I find it boring to be honest to get deeply into statistical analysis of the probability of false alerts etc., but then I find anything mathematical boring. As for statistics, I'm of the 'Lies, damned lies and statistics' viewpoint.
It matters not what the statistics say imo, because we're not looking at these dogs in general, we're looking at just two specific dogs in a specific case.
"Don't confuse the situation with facts."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: John on May 06, 2015, 07:32:44 PM
Members who should know better are asked to please stop goading our new member OxfordBloo. TY
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 07:33:05 PM
Not the sub-forum to argue about that, but I really wouldn't you or myself to have been subject to such non "evidence".
I totally agree but it was the other stuff which convicted them and rightly so. If they were both so innocent why did they make up the cock and bull story about killing her and hiding the body? It really isn't the sort of thing you do if your child has been abducted or is it?
Noticeably, it was the mother who received the larger sentence for murder while brother João got a slightly reduced sentence for his involvement after the fact.
I'm still waiting for evidence beyond "common experience" that she ever got home...
Her shoes which she wore and the merchandise she purchased from the cafe should be a clue. Add to that the fact that she was seen walking home by a neighbour.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2015, 07:38:30 PM
You will of course provide cites for each of those statements Except those made by Grime).
Eddie alerted in Jersey. No body ever found.
Try to stand up the FBI quote.
Over to you.
I don't need to. I know the dogs were right in this case. Eddie proves when he alerts to cadaver a body is found. Never the missing person has turned up alive. You are the one questioning them so get researching on the dogs in this case not general reports. They have been involved in many cases and FBI body farm - passed with flying colours.
The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement speciality of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed.
Grime and Eddie are in high demand, world wide. Getting them to Walker County from England to help solve Theresa Parker's disappearance is an indication of how high a priority her case is for the FBI, according to one FBI agent close to the case.
FBI Agent John Parrish said dogs such as Eddie, a 7-year-old English springer spaniel, are used in "violent crime matters," such as the Parker case.
He also said search dogs assisted authorities in April and provided valuable help. The additional help marks a "new phase of the investigation," Agent Parrish said.
"We wanted to bring in Mr. Grime because he is renowned for his ability to do certain things," Mr. Parrish said. "We (will) go to areas that are of investigative interest to us and not only eliminate (leads, but) follow up on leads."
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2015, 07:39:47 PM
I totally agree but it was the other stuff which convicted them and rightly so. If they were both so innocent why did they make up the cock and bull story about killing her and hiding the body? It isn't really tge sort of thing you do if your chikd has been abducted or is it?
You may have missed links to why people can falsely confess. This is not the right sub-forum, John, we'll get told off by Eleanor or Anna. ;)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 07:47:08 PM
Lots and lots. The clothes and shoes she wore to the shop, the food she brought back, the blood stains on the wall, in the fridge and on the shoes, the attempt to cleanse the scene etc...
But the Cipriano case was not determined by physical evidence but on circumstantial evidence and on confessions attributed to both Leonor and her brother João at various stages of the long proceedings.
To remind readers. The mother Leonor originally told the police that she had hit the girl, she had struck her head on a wall and died. She added that her brother João who was in the house at the time carried the girl out back and hid her. Leonor was later unable to find her hiding place.
João for his part claimed that he had hid the body at various locatons but even after police had taken him on several searches no remains were ever found.
Leonor later recanted her confession to murder and claimed that her brother had in fact taken his niece to sell her to some foreigners but that the deal had fallen through. For reasons she has never disclosed the girl ended up dead.
I disagree. I find the so-called "evidence" to be absurd. There is a sub-forum dedicated to this girl's disappearance.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 06, 2015, 07:48:25 PM
I don't need to. I know the dogs were right in this case. Eddie proves when he alerts to cadaver a body is found. Never the missing person has turned up alive. You are the one questioning them so get researching on the dogs in this case not general reports. They have been involved in many cases and FBI body farm - passed with flying colours.
The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement speciality of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed.
Grime and Eddie are in high demand, world wide. Getting them to Walker County from England to help solve Theresa Parker's disappearance is an indication of how high a priority her case is for the FBI, according to one FBI agent close to the case.
FBI Agent John Parrish said dogs such as Eddie, a 7-year-old English springer spaniel, are used in "violent crime matters," such as the Parker case.
He also said search dogs assisted authorities in April and provided valuable help. The additional help marks a "new phase of the investigation," Agent Parrish said.
"We wanted to bring in Mr. Grime because he is renowned for his ability to do certain things," Mr. Parrish said. "We (will) go to areas that are of investigative interest to us and not only eliminate (leads, but) follow up on leads."
Please explain exactly how Grime & Eddie helped solve the Parker case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 06, 2015, 07:50:38 PM
Lots and lots. The clothes and shoes she wore to the shop, the food she brought back, the blood stains on the wall, in the fridge and on the shoes, the attempt to cleanse the scene etc...
But the Cipriano case was not determined by physical evidence but on circumstantial evidence and on confessions attributed to both Leonor and her brother João at various stages of the long proceedings.
To remind readers. The mother Leonor originally told the police that she had hit the girl, she had struck her head on a wall and died. She added that her brother João who was in the house at the time carried the girl out back and hid her. Leonor was later unable to find her hiding place.
João for his part claimed that he had hid the body at various locatons but even after police had taken him on several searches no remains were ever found.
Leonor later recanted her confession to murder and claimed that her brother had in fact taken his niece to sell her to some foreigners but that the deal had fallen through. For reasons she has never disclosed the girl ended up dead.
Clothes, shoes and food are not evidence of murder. Bloodstains could well be, but as none was ever shown to belong to Joana, they could only be considered circumstantial. No solid proof whatoever of murder, just the confessions of a couple of simpletons.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 06, 2015, 08:01:51 PM
Interesting comments from a VRD handler at the end of this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlNCYATHzUY
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 08:22:04 PM
I don't need to. I know the dogs were right in this case. Eddie proves when he alerts to cadaver a body is found. Never the missing person has turned up alive. You are the one questioning them so get researching on the dogs in this case not general reports. They have been involved in many cases and FBI body farm - passed with flying colours.
The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement speciality of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed.
Grime and Eddie are in high demand, world wide. Getting them to Walker County from England to help solve Theresa Parker's disappearance is an indication of how high a priority her case is for the FBI, according to one FBI agent close to the case.
FBI Agent John Parrish said dogs such as Eddie, a 7-year-old English springer spaniel, are used in "violent crime matters," such as the Parker case.
He also said search dogs assisted authorities in April and provided valuable help. The additional help marks a "new phase of the investigation," Agent Parrish said.
"We wanted to bring in Mr. Grime because he is renowned for his ability to do certain things," Mr. Parrish said. "We (will) go to areas that are of investigative interest to us and not only eliminate (leads, but) follow up on leads."
Knowledge never comes from belief, only from testing reality.
I start from the point of neither believing or disbelieving the dogs and ask 'what has been teliably tested?' not as you do 'what does the person with a financial interest in them say.' My route brings real knowledge, yours. Your method merely parrots biased belief.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2015, 08:43:19 PM
Knowledge never comes from belief, only from testing reality.
I start from the point of neither believing or disbelieving the dogs and ask 'what has been teliably tested?' not as you do 'what does the person with a financial interest in them say.' My route brings real knowledge, yours. Your method merely parrots biased belief.
Do you know if the tests which have been carried out to assess handlers and their dogs allowed for the Hawthorne effect?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2015, 09:08:04 PM
Knowledge never comes from belief, only from testing reality.
I start from the point of neither believing or disbelieving the dogs and ask 'what has been teliably tested?' not as you do 'what does the person with a financial interest in them say.' My route brings real knowledge, yours. Your method merely parrots biased belief.
Re the alert in the flower bed...would the cadaverine scent have lasted 3 months outside if there were no physical remains
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 09:16:25 PM
His retirement date is a matter of record- the end of July. Also on record is the fact that he was on long leave before retirement for the time he was in PdL. He was fully retired (and the dogs were unaccredited) when he went to Jersey.
Why are you answering for Ferryman? Do you have proof for all you say? Are you condoning the suggestion he was "impersonating" a police officer? The UK and Portuguese police have never mentioned having a problem with Mr Grime, his dogs and his work in Portugal Who mentioned Jersey? You don't have to answer.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2015, 10:22:45 PM
as you admit...he may have an idea...an opinion...but he doesn't know
A professional and seasoned dog handler (unlike others who are not) will certainly have "an idea and opinion" Quite right. It is in the files. His "professional opinion" was that what the cadaver dog alerted to was cadaver scent contaminant. I find your offside suggestion that it could have been anything at all and it would be anyones guess what it was a little misleading.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 06, 2015, 10:29:29 PM
Don't be so silly ... I have never asserted police contamination of the walls in apartment 5A for the simple reason there was none in that place and I am sure you are as familiar with the FSS report as any ... disingenuous of you to put words in my mouth however.
Had Keela been introduced to the areas of interest shown by Eddie in the other apartments and the same amount of time and encouragement given as in 5A to both dogs, who knows what other alerts might have been produced for the video?
You can reread our conversation the other day from here and on:
I may have misread your assertions, let me know where
As regards Keela, the blood dog, not being utilised in any other apartment, she wasn't, as Eddie showed no interest in any of them. That is what the handler tells us. He is the professional, I assume you are just another armchair detective.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 10:41:51 PM
Why are you answering for Ferryman? Do you have proof for all you say? Are you condoning the suggestion he was "impersonating" a police officer? The UK and Portuguese police have never mentioned having a problem with Mr Grime, his dogs and his work in Portugal Who mentioned Jersey? You don't have to answer.
I won't as it is already posted above.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2015, 10:43:59 PM
Please explain exactly how Grime & Eddie helped solve the Parker case.
Sept 2007 "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.
Sept 2010 Theresa Parker's family and friends will finally be able to put the Georgia 911 dispatcher to rest after her skeletal remains were found scattered along the Chattanooga River.
He said that, after Theresa Parker's friend reported to police that she was worried about Theresa in March 2007, two Walker County sheriff's deputies found an empty house and looked inside the Parkers' garage when they weren't allowed.
On the left side of the garage, they found Sam's LaFayette Police Department vehicle. On the right side, where Theresa's Toyota 4Runner should have sat, they found nothing. They also found Sam Parker's truck outside the garage, and days later they found the 4Runner back in its place -- though no one ever saw Theresa again.
When Theresa's family reported her missing, members of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation asked Sam Parker where he was the night his wife had last been seen. He told them he had been cruising in his truck.
But investigators knew that wasn't true because the truck had been home when deputies checked on the Parkers. The inconsistency in Sam Parker's story was a key point during a September 2009 trial in which he was found guilty.
You don't fool Eddie. If there's cadaver scent he will detect and alert to it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 06, 2015, 10:48:25 PM
I may have misread your assertions, let me know where
As regards Keela, the blood dog, not being utilised in any other apartment, she wasn't, as Eddie showed no interest in any of them. That is what the handler tells us. He is the professional, I assume you are just another armchair detective.
You will of course have an explanation for Mark Harrison moving the sideboard to allow Eddie access to an area of interest. While you are explaining that ... perhaps you have an explanation of why he wasn't allowed free rein to do so.
Of course you don't because you appear to be interested only in displaying your somewhat combative style of posting.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2015, 10:51:43 PM
You will of course have an explanation for Mark Harrison moving the sideboard to allow Eddie access to an area of interest. While you are explaining that ... perhaps you have an explanation of why he wasn't allowed free rein to do so.
Of course you don't because you appear to be interested only in displaying your somewhat combative style of posting.
Que? Not to worry. Attack is the best form of defence some say.Not to mention changng the subject. So I gather you are not interested in re explaining your posts or correcting misunderstandings. Or offering proof of your assertions (specifically the one about samples being examined and found to contain cigarette ash).
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 11:04:08 PM
Sept 2007 "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.
Sept 2010 Theresa Parker's family and friends will finally be able to put the Georgia 911 dispatcher to rest after her skeletal remains were found scattered along the Chattanooga River.
He said that, after Theresa Parker's friend reported to police that she was worried about Theresa in March 2007, two Walker County sheriff's deputies found an empty house and looked inside the Parkers' garage when they weren't allowed.
On the left side of the garage, they found Sam's LaFayette Police Department vehicle. On the right side, where Theresa's Toyota 4Runner should have sat, they found nothing. They also found Sam Parker's truck outside the garage, and days later they found the 4Runner back in its place -- though no one ever saw Theresa again.
When Theresa's family reported her missing, members of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation asked Sam Parker where he was the night his wife had last been seen. He told them he had been cruising in his truck.
But investigators knew that wasn't true because the truck had been home when deputies checked on the Parkers. The inconsistency in Sam Parker's story was a key point during a September 2009 trial in which he was found guilty.
You don't fool Eddie. If there's cadaver scent he will detect and alert to it.
The sum of witness statements of domestic violence plus the available evidence ~ allowed Sam Parker's prosecution to proceed and really had nothing whatsoever to do with either Eddie or the Maggie, the Australian dog.
**snip Defense attorney Doug Woodruff asked Higgins about the accuracy of Maggie's nose and if there is any scientific proof that shows these type of dogs only get aroused by cadavers.
"Scientifically, no," Higgins replied.
Upon further cross examination Higgins said Maggie has only shown accuracy on occasions when other physical evidence points to where a body has been dumped. http://www.scentevidence.com/2009/07/dog-debate-at-center-of-murder-case.html
**snip 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
**snip Crime scene investigator Audie Wayne Murphy was questioned on taking two blood samples from the bumper, under the latch, of the murder victim’s Toyota Forerunner... Forensic biologist Ashley Hinkle with the GBI crime lab testified to testing various samples of evidence, including the blood on the bumper, a washcloth with blood on it, dog hair with blood on it, a flashlight, shirt, sweatshirt and towel, to name a few. DNA examiner Jessica Walker with the U.S. Army crime lab and formerly with the GBI, conducted tests on the two blood samples and confirmed the two blood stains were one on top of the other and that the DNA found in the samples were that of Teresa Parker and Sam Parker... http://behindthebluewall.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/ga-overview-fired-police-sgt-sam.html
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 06, 2015, 11:22:50 PM
Sept 2007 "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.
Sept 2010 Theresa Parker's family and friends will finally be able to put the Georgia 911 dispatcher to rest after her skeletal remains were found scattered along the Chattanooga River.
He said that, after Theresa Parker's friend reported to police that she was worried about Theresa in March 2007, two Walker County sheriff's deputies found an empty house and looked inside the Parkers' garage when they weren't allowed.
On the left side of the garage, they found Sam's LaFayette Police Department vehicle. On the right side, where Theresa's Toyota 4Runner should have sat, they found nothing. They also found Sam Parker's truck outside the garage, and days later they found the 4Runner back in its place -- though no one ever saw Theresa again.
When Theresa's family reported her missing, members of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation asked Sam Parker where he was the night his wife had last been seen. He told them he had been cruising in his truck.
But investigators knew that wasn't true because the truck had been home when deputies checked on the Parkers. The inconsistency in Sam Parker's story was a key point during a September 2009 trial in which he was found guilty.
You don't fool Eddie. If there's cadaver scent he will detect and alert to it.
Cadaver scent had already been located before Eddie was called in. Eddie no more located the remains than the previous dogs did. His signal merely provided a limited corroboration of Maggie's indications.
Walker County Messenger-http://www.walkermessenger.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Pretrial+testimony+continues+in+Sam+Parker+murder+case%20&id=2948982-Pretrial+testimony+continues+in+Sam+Parker+murder+case&instance=home_news
Dog experts testify
In Tuesday proceedings, Lisa Higgins with the Louisiana Search and Rescue Dog Team was the first to testify. Higgins retired from law enforcement after 30 years and continues to train search-and-rescue dogs.
Higgins said she brought her Australian shepherd named “Maggie” to search for Theresa Parker in April 2007. Maggie has been a certified cadaver dog since 2003 and is trained in searching for decomposed remains. Maggie lets her handlers know she has found decomposed remains by lying down near the scent.
On April 13, 2007, she and Maggie came to Walker County to search for Theresa Parker, she said. While investi-gating vehicles in the impound behind the Walker County Sheriff’s Office, Maggie picked up a scent of decomposing remains and sent an alert, by laying down, when she came across Teresa Parker’s Toyota Forerunner. Maggie also had a change of behavior when she picked up a scent along the rear passenger’s side of the vehicle.
In response to questions from the defense, Higgins said the scent picked up by Maggie is not necessarily human remains.
Assistant public defender Doug Woodruff asked Higgins if Maggie was infallible and Higgins replied, “No, sir.”
The second witness was Martin Grime of the United Kingdom. He is occasionally contracted by the U.S. govern-ment and is a qualified expert in cadaver dogs.
Grime displayed five videos of his search dog “Eddie,” trained to search for human decomposition. The videos, filmed at the LaFayette Police Department during September 2007, displayed the dog’s ability to pick up on alert scents and did not show any video of the dog searching for the remains of Teresa Parker.
On Sept. 20, 2007, Eddie and Grime traveled to Sam Parker’s residence at 95 Cordell Ave. in LaFayette for the dog to search the property.
During Woodruff’s questioning, Grime said Eddie was used to search the residence — inside, around and under-neath — and found nothing. But in the garage area, between a boat and a pickup truck, Eddie gave an alert of a scent.
Woodruff asked Grime why he did not search the pickup. Grime said that he only screened the areas he was asked to search and if there had been a scent, Eddie would have picked it up.
The courtroom became tense when Woodruff questioned Grime’s reading of the dog and their legitimacy, giving various hypothetical scenarios, such as the dog smelling food instead of remains. Grime replied, “I can’t predict the dog’s behavior. I study the dog’s behavior. You are trying to put words in my mouth and I don’t deal in hypotheti-cals.”
Law enforcement agents testify
GBI special agent James Harris, who conducted an initial interview with Sam Parker and performed a search of his property in March 2007, was brought to the stand.
District attorney Leigh Patterson questioned Harris on the various search and evidence warrants, all of which Sam Parker agreed to.
The warrants included Sam Parker’s residence at 95 Cordell Ave., the area around the residence and the areas adjacent to the residence; Sam Parker’s deceased father’s Trion residence; Sam Parker’s LaFayette Police Depart-ment locker; Sam Parker’s patrol vehicle; and DNA swabs from Sam Parker’s mouth and Teresa Parker’s Toyota Forerunner.
FBI special agent Marcus Veazy was cross-examined about placing a tracking device on the Toyota Forerunner and about the DNA swabbing.
GBI special agent Dan Simms and Walker County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Burt Cagle were questioned by public de-fender David Dunn on why the Toyota Forerunner was eventually driven by Simms to the Sheriff’s Office, if the seat had been moved back to fit Simms’ 6-foot-2-inch frame, and if they took samples from a burn pile on Sam Parker’s property.
Simms said he wanted to get the vehicle processed before Sam Parker changed his mind on consent.
Cagle said he remained with Sam Parker, while Simms investigated the burn pile and took the vehicle in for ex-amination.
Both men, at separate times during questioning, said that when they asked Sam Parker if the vehicle could be taken in for examination, Parker said, “Go ahead and take it. I don’t need it anymore.”
"...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.
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.
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."
The FBI has a keen interest in the outcome of this case. If Parker is convicted the case could pave the legal way for future prosecutions where there is no evidence other than dog "hits" in connection with a person accused of murder.
Toward the end of the day Judge Wood learned that while Grime has international acclaim he has never testified as an expert witness in the United States.
Testimony ended Tuesday with a couple Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents saying Mr. Parker has always been cooperative with the investigation and allowed them to do whatever they wanted on his property.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2015, 12:02:17 AM
Cadaver scent had already been located before Eddie was called in. Eddie no more located the remains than the previous dogs did. His signal merely provided a limited corroboration of Maggie's indications.
Walker County Messenger-http://www.walkermessenger.com/pages/full_story/push?article-Pretrial+testimony+continues+in+Sam+Parker+murder+case%20&id=2948982-Pretrial+testimony+continues+in+Sam+Parker+murder+case&instance=home_news
Dog experts testify
In Tuesday proceedings, Lisa Higgins with the Louisiana Search and Rescue Dog Team was the first to testify. Higgins retired from law enforcement after 30 years and continues to train search-and-rescue dogs.
Higgins said she brought her Australian shepherd named “Maggie” to search for Theresa Parker in April 2007. Maggie has been a certified cadaver dog since 2003 and is trained in searching for decomposed remains. Maggie lets her handlers know she has found decomposed remains by lying down near the scent.
On April 13, 2007, she and Maggie came to Walker County to search for Theresa Parker, she said. While investi-gating vehicles in the impound behind the Walker County Sheriff’s Office, Maggie picked up a scent of decomposing remains and sent an alert, by laying down, when she came across Teresa Parker’s Toyota Forerunner. Maggie also had a change of behavior when she picked up a scent along the rear passenger’s side of the vehicle.
In response to questions from the defense, Higgins said the scent picked up by Maggie is not necessarily human remains.
Assistant public defender Doug Woodruff asked Higgins if Maggie was infallible and Higgins replied, “No, sir.”
The second witness was Martin Grime of the United Kingdom. He is occasionally contracted by the U.S. govern-ment and is a qualified expert in cadaver dogs.
Grime displayed five videos of his search dog “Eddie,” trained to search for human decomposition. The videos, filmed at the LaFayette Police Department during September 2007, displayed the dog’s ability to pick up on alert scents and did not show any video of the dog searching for the remains of Teresa Parker.
On Sept. 20, 2007, Eddie and Grime traveled to Sam Parker’s residence at 95 Cordell Ave. in LaFayette for the dog to search the property.
During Woodruff’s questioning, Grime said Eddie was used to search the residence — inside, around and under-neath — and found nothing. But in the garage area, between a boat and a pickup truck, Eddie gave an alert of a scent.
Woodruff asked Grime why he did not search the pickup. Grime said that he only screened the areas he was asked to search and if there had been a scent, Eddie would have picked it up.
The courtroom became tense when Woodruff questioned Grime’s reading of the dog and their legitimacy, giving various hypothetical scenarios, such as the dog smelling food instead of remains. Grime replied, “I can’t predict the dog’s behavior. I study the dog’s behavior. You are trying to put words in my mouth and I don’t deal in hypotheti-cals.”
Law enforcement agents testify
GBI special agent James Harris, who conducted an initial interview with Sam Parker and performed a search of his property in March 2007, was brought to the stand.
District attorney Leigh Patterson questioned Harris on the various search and evidence warrants, all of which Sam Parker agreed to.
The warrants included Sam Parker’s residence at 95 Cordell Ave., the area around the residence and the areas adjacent to the residence; Sam Parker’s deceased father’s Trion residence; Sam Parker’s LaFayette Police Depart-ment locker; Sam Parker’s patrol vehicle; and DNA swabs from Sam Parker’s mouth and Teresa Parker’s Toyota Forerunner.
FBI special agent Marcus Veazy was cross-examined about placing a tracking device on the Toyota Forerunner and about the DNA swabbing.
GBI special agent Dan Simms and Walker County Sheriff’s Office Lt. Burt Cagle were questioned by public de-fender David Dunn on why the Toyota Forerunner was eventually driven by Simms to the Sheriff’s Office, if the seat had been moved back to fit Simms’ 6-foot-2-inch frame, and if they took samples from a burn pile on Sam Parker’s property.
Simms said he wanted to get the vehicle processed before Sam Parker changed his mind on consent.
Cagle said he remained with Sam Parker, while Simms investigated the burn pile and took the vehicle in for ex-amination.
Both men, at separate times during questioning, said that when they asked Sam Parker if the vehicle could be taken in for examination, Parker said, “Go ahead and take it. I don’t need it anymore.”
"...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.
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.
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."
The FBI has a keen interest in the outcome of this case. If Parker is convicted the case could pave the legal way for future prosecutions where there is no evidence other than dog "hits" in connection with a person accused of murder.
Toward the end of the day Judge Wood learned that while Grime has international acclaim he has never testified as an expert witness in the United States.
Testimony ended Tuesday with a couple Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents saying Mr. Parker has always been cooperative with the investigation and allowed them to do whatever they wanted on his property.
So what? Eddie wasn't wrong in this case. You go and find a missing person who has turned up alive after he alerted to cadaver scent. I will give you some good advice - you won't find any! And unfortunately Madeleine will never turn up alive in this case and that's why SY are searching for a body.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2015, 12:08:29 AM
Interesting that so many people are trying to discredit the dogs as if the dogs had ever convicted people
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 07, 2015, 12:11:36 AM
So what? Eddie wasn't wrong in this case. You go and find a missing person who has turned up alive after he alerted to cadaver scent. I will give you some good advice - you won't find any! And unfortunately Madeleine will never turn up alive in this case and that's why SY are searching for a body.
I think the point is PF ... Eddie did not alert in the Theresa Parker case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 12:12:59 AM
Exactly which is what I said but my post has disSappeared?...so in this case the dog alerts remain as circumstantial evidence
the alerts are not circumstantial evidence according to grime...they have no evidential reliability..according to grime
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2015, 07:16:52 AM
In the Prout case a cadaver dog alerted in the living room. No body was found, but Prout was tried and convicted after police put together a mass of circumstantial evidence. After his conviction he led police to the place where he had buried her and the cadaver dogs pinpointed the spot. What a useful tool they are.
EVIDENCE of a dead body inside murdered Kate Prout's home was discovered by a sniffer dog, it has emerged.
The "cadaver dog" homed in on an area in the living room of the Redmarley home she shared with her husband Adrian Prout, who was convicted of her killing last year.
An hour-long documentary on the murder case told how the dog, which was specially trained to seek out dead bodies and where deaths occurred, concentrated on a specific spot in the living room at Redhill Farm.
Read more: http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Cadaver-dog-sniffed-death-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html#ixzz3ZQlkd9E9 Follow us: @GlosCitizen on Twitter | GlosCitizen on Facebook
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2015, 07:30:59 AM
In the Prout case a cadaver dog alerted in the living room. No body was found, but Prout was tried and convicted after police put together a mass of circumstantial evidence. After his conviction he led police to the place where he had buried her and the cadaver dogs pinpointed the spot. What a useful tool they are.
EVIDENCE of a dead body inside murdered Kate Prout's home was discovered by a sniffer dog, it has emerged.
The "cadaver dog" homed in on an area in the living room of the Redmarley home she shared with her husband Adrian Prout, who was convicted of her killing last year.
An hour-long documentary on the murder case told how the dog, which was specially trained to seek out dead bodies and where deaths occurred, concentrated on a specific spot in the living room at Redhill Farm.
Read more: http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Cadaver-dog-sniffed-death-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html#ixzz3ZQlkd9E9 Follow us: @GlosCitizen on Twitter | GlosCitizen on Facebook
citing individual cases is meaningless...just like quoting you smoking since you ere 15.....doesn't prove smoking is not damaging to health...or perhaps you think it does
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 07, 2015, 07:33:54 AM
I think the point is PF ... Eddie did not alert in the Theresa Parker case.
Eddie immediately alerted in Theresa Parker's garage where her car went missing from when she was reported missing. Days later the car returned to the garage but Theresa was never seen again. Her policeman husband was convicted of her murder and her remains were later found.
Martin Grime did further searching with Eddie and he alerted at the house next door where a child had died years earlier. So Eddie alerted to two cadavers in one search.
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.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 07, 2015, 08:09:29 AM
Eddie immediately alerted in Theresa Parker's garage where her car went missing from when she was reported missing. Days later the car returned to the garage but Theresa was never seen again. Her policeman husband was convicted of her murder and her remains were later found.
Martin Grime did further searching with Eddie and he alerted at the house next door where a child had died years earlier. So Eddie alerted to two cadavers in one search.
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.
AFAIK no-one is disputing how clever Eddie was as a sniffer dog. But the above examples of his expertise does beg the question as to why Eddie did not alert to any of the several items of clothing in the villa - which he later alerted to at the gym.
Could if be that there was no cadaverscent to detect at that time - and that cross contamination may have occurred at some time during the collection, transference, unpacking and laying out of the clothing at the gym?
I'd still like your opinion on the fact that all the items alerted to came from the same box. I'm no mathematician but surely the odds of that happening by chance alone must be astronomical.
IMO
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 07, 2015, 10:46:09 AM
I totally agree but it was the other stuff which convicted them and rightly so. If they were both so innocent why did they make up the cock and bull story about killing her and hiding the body? It really isn't the sort of thing you do if your child has been abducted or is it?
Noticeably, it was the mother who received the larger sentence for murder while brother João got a slightly reduced sentence for his involvement after the fact.
Her shoes which she wore and the merchandise she purchased from the cafe should be a clue. Add to that the fact that she was seen walking home by a neighbour.
Arghh. LOL I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not even convinced that you really believe that.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Angelo222 on May 07, 2015, 01:03:47 PM
citing individual cases is meaningless...just like quoting you smoking since you ere 15.....doesn't prove smoking is not damaging to health...or perhaps you think it does
The point, davel, is that statistics just give us probabilities. The statistics on smoking and health may tell us that x number of smokers will suffer from y number of smoking-related diseases. They can't tell us which individuals will suffer from these diseases. They can only provide the odds of an individual suffering.
By the same token, statistics relating to cadaver dogs and handlers can only tell us the odds of false alerts happening. They can't tell us anything about individual dogs and their handlers.
Science has been hugely successful because it mostly works with inanimate objects, not people.Human beings can't be studied like rocks or trees, because they think and react to the circumstances they find themselves in. Testing will affect the dog's handlers. Some may not find the testing stressful, but others will; just like exam nerves. Dogs will pick up their handler's mood, and if the handler is stressed the dog will be stressed too. Testing will not replicate the success rate of the handlers and dogs when they are working in the normal way, it will add pressure which will affect the results.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2015, 04:23:33 PM
The point, davel, is that statistics just give us probabilities. The statistics on smoking and health may tell us that x number of smokers will suffer from y number of smoking-related diseases. They can't tell us which individuals will suffer from these diseases. They can only provide the odds of an individual suffering.
By the same token, statistics relating to cadaver dogs and handlers can only tell us the odds of false alerts happening. They can't tell us anything about individual dogs and their handlers.
Science has been hugely successful because it mostly works with inanimate objects, not people.Human beings can't be studied like rocks or trees, because they think and react to the circumstances they find themselves in. Testing will affect the dog's handlers. Some may not find the testing stressful, but others will; just like exam nerves. Dogs will pick up their handler's mood, and if the handler is stressed the dog will be stressed too. Testing will not replicate the success rate of the handlers and dogs when they are working in the normal way, it will add pressure which will affect the results.
Statistics tell us that smoking is damaging to health....you may still develop lung cancer
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 07, 2015, 05:47:50 PM
The point, davel, is that statistics just give us probabilities. The statistics on smoking and health may tell us that x number of smokers will suffer from y number of smoking-related diseases. They can't tell us which individuals will suffer from these diseases. They can only provide the odds of an individual suffering.
By the same token, statistics relating to cadaver dogs and handlers can only tell us the odds of false alerts happening. They can't tell us anything about individual dogs and their handlers.
Science has been hugely successful because it mostly works with inanimate objects, not people.Human beings can't be studied like rocks or trees, because they think and react to the circumstances they find themselves in. Testing will affect the dog's handlers. Some may not find the testing stressful, but others will; just like exam nerves. Dogs will pick up their handler's mood, and if the handler is stressed the dog will be stressed too. Testing will not replicate the success rate of the handlers and dogs when they are working in the normal way, it will add pressure which will affect the results.
Don't you think working on the most publicised missing child there has ever been might have put pressure on the handler to produce meaningful results?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 07, 2015, 06:13:11 PM
Might the handler have been influenced by knowing that Mr Murat was already under suspicion ?
Might he therefore have been "unconsciously" inclined to "cue" or give out "tells" in order to produce meaningful results in the most publicised missing child ever ?
Might he have felt that there must have been reasons why this person was Arguido and would therefore have been influenced by knowing this?
Might the handler have considered the public /press outcry and his vilification and traducing by their supporters should the parents be "alerted to" by the dogs in any way and been influenced by this?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 06:27:10 PM
Might the handler have been influenced by knowing that Mr Murat was already under suspicion ?
Might he therefore have been "unconsciously" inclined to "cue" or give out "tells" in order to produce meaningful results in the most publicised missing child ever ?
Might he have felt that there must have been reasons why this person was Arguido and would therefore have been influenced by knowing this?
Might the handler have considered the public /press outcry and his vilification and traducing by their supporters should the parents be "alerted to" by the dogs in any way and been influenced by this?
Might he have been told by Amaral that he had the McCanns bang to rights and all he needed was some forensics to force a confession?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 07, 2015, 06:27:29 PM
Might the handler have been influenced by knowing that Mr Murat was already under suspicion ?
Might he therefore have been "unconsciously" inclined to "cue" or give out "tells" in order to produce meaningful results in the most publicised missing child ever ?
Might he have felt that there must have been reasons why this person was Arguido and would therefore have been influenced by knowing this?
Might the handler have considered the public /press outcry and his vilification and traducing by their supporters should the parents be "alerted to" by the dogs in any way and been influenced by this?
Might the handler have been briefed before conducting the searches by the police, who by this time had formed a very firm opinion as to what happened to Madeleine?
Might the police have privately discounted Murat's likely involvement by the time the searches took place, as there is no mention of any theory in Amaral's book as far as I know which links Murat to the McCanns in the alleged death and disposal of the child and no questions put to Gerry and Kate about any possible link to Murat during their questioning as arguidos...?
So many questions, so few answers!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 07, 2015, 06:37:51 PM
Might the handler have been briefed before conducting the searches by the police, who by this time had formed a very firm opinion as to what happened to Madeleine?
Might the police have privately discounted Murat's likely involvement by the time the searches took place, as there is no mention of any theory in Amaral's book as far as I know which links Murat to the McCanns in the alleged death and disposal of the child and no questions put to Gerry and Kate about any possible link to Murat during their questioning as arguidos...?
So many questions, so few answers!
............and such a headache for the handler apparently having to bear in mind the "expected outcome" and consistently cue it to the dog, without any cock-ups on the day!
Oh what a performance!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 06:44:53 PM
............and such a headache for the handler apparently having to bear in mind the "expected outcome" and consistently cue it to the dog, without any cock-ups on the day!
Oh what a performance!
No performance.
All unconscious cueing.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 07, 2015, 06:49:18 PM
Might he have been told by Amaral that he had the McCanns bang to rights and all he needed was some forensics to force a confession?
Might the handler...........supposing he`d been told as you say............ have possibly made different choices in his cue sites for the dog, since it would have been a conscious rather than unconscious process?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 07, 2015, 06:57:17 PM
Then of course there is the possibility that to the "operator" it was just another job. Same old crap different day as we used to say.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 07, 2015, 07:02:34 PM
It is obvious that one or two "executive members" of the Alfie/ Brietta school of "Assess and Chastise other posters" are comfortable in knowing they can do so with impunity.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2015, 07:09:46 PM
medical research in itself tells us nothing until the results are statistically analysed.
Which is back to my point I think. With FA to analyse statistics will tell you FA.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 07, 2015, 07:15:35 PM
I have been clear as clear can be about this. If you can find one single post of mine in which I accuse Grime of consciously cueing the dogs then kindly reproduce it here. Then let's see who does the wriggling.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 07, 2015, 07:19:16 PM
Perhaps someone would care to explain why Grime made no intervention when Keela was scenting inside the main body of the Scenic but once she was moved into the boot he made a great show of tapping at certain areas.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2015, 07:22:51 PM
Perhaps someone would care to explain why Grime made no intervention when Keela was scenting inside the main body of the Scenic but once she was moved into the boot he made a great show of tapping at certain areas.
grime was guiding Keela to areas where evidence might be found....cueing if you like...nothing wrong with that...wouldn't want to miss any important evidence
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: misty on May 07, 2015, 07:30:26 PM
grime was guiding Keela to areas where evidence might be found....cueing if you like...nothing wrong with that...wouldn't want to miss any important evidence
So you don't find it odd that he didn't expect Keela to find any evidence inside the main body of the vehicle.....we didn't even see on the DVD Keela indicating to the key fob....and Eddie hadn't even marked the boot....
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2015, 07:34:18 PM
So you don't find it odd that he didn't expect Keela to find any evidence inside the main body of the vehicle.....we didn't even see on the DVD Keela indicating to the key fob....and Eddie hadn't even marked the boot....
haven't bothered to watch the dvd so not sure what you are saying...basically Grime says the alerts are worth sweet FA so I lost interest
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 07, 2015, 07:35:15 PM
How could you be sure it would be unconscious, if, as you said earlier.....
"Might he have been told by Amaral that he had the McCanns bang to rights and all he needed was some forensics to force a confession?"
In suggesting that as a possibility, you pave the way for the handler knowing overtly what was useful in terms of results.
that would explain why Grime was convinced that if he looked hard enough he would find some evidence...wouldn't that look good on his CV and what a boost for his new business.
Blinded by the pound signs one might say
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 08:01:18 PM
You're right - I wasn't having dinner,watching telly or speaking to a family member on the phone in the last two hours, I was simply staring at your post trying to think of a suitable response. Two whole hours it took, that's how slow my brain works. 8(8-))
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 07, 2015, 09:59:14 PM
You're right - I wasn't having dinner,watching telly or speaking to a family member on the phone in the last two hours, I was simply staring at your post trying to think of a suitable response. Two whole hours it took, that's how slow my brain works. 8(8-))
Enough......or........... ( perish the thought).........you could be accused of encouraging me to veer off topic !
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2015, 10:07:11 PM
I have just read the article on Alfred's signature. It confirms exactly what I have been saying. You can't study human beings like you can study rocks or other inanimate objects. Human beings think and react. The researchers told the handlers that there was scent where the red paper was. The handlers would of course direct the dogs to sniff there, and the dogs alerted. Dogs are very good at picking up signals by their owners, and detection dogs are no different. What it amounted to is that they lied to the handler, he or she believed them and the dog picked up on the handler's belief. I very much doubt that the PJ put a piece of red paper behind the couch for Martin Grimes.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: slartibartfast on May 07, 2015, 10:42:12 PM
I have just read the article on Alfred's signature. It confirms exactly what I have been saying. You can't study human beings like you can study rocks or other inanimate objects. Human beings think and react. The researchers told the handlers that there was scent where the red paper was. The handlers would of course direct the dogs to sniff there, and the dogs alerted. Dogs are very good at picking up signals by their owners, and detection dogs are no different. What it amounted to is that they lied to the handler, he or she believed them and the dog picked up on the handler's belief. I very much doubt that the PJ put a piece of red paper behind the couch for Martin Grimes.
I think I said that a couple of days ago.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 07, 2015, 11:10:08 PM
I have just read the article on Alfred's signature. It confirms exactly what I have been saying. You can't study human beings like you can study rocks or other inanimate objects. Human beings think and react. The researchers told the handlers that there was scent where the red paper was. The handlers would of course direct the dogs to sniff there, and the dogs alerted. Dogs are very good at picking up signals by their owners, and detection dogs are no different. What it amounted to is that they lied to the handler, he or she believed them and the dog picked up on the handler's belief. I very much doubt that the PJ put a piece of red paper behind the couch for Martin Grimes.
the PJ didn't need a piece of paper, it was completely apparent which were the McCanns' apartment and car!
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pegasus on May 07, 2015, 11:22:29 PM
Anyone who complains about a dog being cued (directed where to sniff) should watch the video of MG repeatedly cueing a dog to examine every nook and cranny of a wicker chair in 5A. Every time the dog leaves, MG calls it back to sniff more. Did the dog signal? No. This is video proof that asking a dog to repeatedly examine an area or object, does not cause the dog to alert.
And re the handler knowing who lived at the residence being examined, look at the Sharp case, the handler of the dog there knew exactly which residence they were at. Did that make the dog's signal incorrect? The only problem there was that police ignored the dog's signal first time round. That dog and its handler solved the case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2015, 11:27:25 PM
the PJ didn't need a piece of paper, it was completely apparent which were the McCanns' apartment and car!
Was it also completely apparent that alerting behind the couch would yield DNA samples? Martin Grime had a whole apartment to chose from, so why did he chose that spot?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 11:32:04 PM
Was it also completely apparent that alerting behind the couch would yield DNA samples? Martin Grime had a whole apartment to chose from, so why did he chose that spot?
Maybe Eddie did alert to blood there.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 07, 2015, 11:36:15 PM
I have been clear as clear can be about this. If you can find one single post of mine in which I accuse Grime of consciously cueing the dogs then kindly reproduce it here. Then let's see who does the wriggling.
Hmmmm........your reply to me earlier on in the thread.....emboldened below....... It could seem that you are prepared to accept "conscious cuing" as an integral part of the handler instruction process.
Or did you mean only handlers other than the one involved in the case under discussion?
55
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. / Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant? « on: May 05, 2015, 02:16:26 PM »
Quote from: Carew on May 05, 2015, 01:44:28 PM
Has science shown yet why errors in alerts.... due to contaminants.... blood or non-blood, present at all investigation sites are not occurring on a continual basis, anywhere and everywhere.....rendering deployment of the dogs a waste of time?
Alfie The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they? In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't. Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 07, 2015, 11:43:55 PM
Was it also completely apparent that alerting behind the couch would yield DNA samples? Martin Grime had a whole apartment to chose from, so why did he chose that spot?
What DNA matter was recovered? Evidence of a dead body? Isn't it likely that DNA samples could have been recovered from pretty much everywhere in the apartment, the kitchen and bathroom especially?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2015, 11:45:20 PM
Hmmmm........your reply to me earlier on in the thread.....emboldened below....... It could seem that you are prepared to accept "conscious cuing" as an integral part of the handler instruction process.
Or did you mean only handlers other than the one involved in the case under discussion?
55
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. / Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant? « on: May 05, 2015, 02:16:26 PM »
Quote from: Carew on May 05, 2015, 01:44:28 PM
Has science shown yet why errors in alerts.... due to contaminants.... blood or non-blood, present at all investigation sites are not occurring on a continual basis, anywhere and everywhere.....rendering deployment of the dogs a waste of time?
Alfie The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they? In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't. Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?
Some handlers may cue deliberately, some may cue accidentally, but nowhere in my post do I accuse Grime of deliberate cueing, so please spend a few more hours trawling through my posts for any evidence of my "traducng" of Grime... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 12:24:22 AM
What DNA matter was recovered? Evidence of a dead body? Isn't it likely that DNA samples could have been recovered from pretty much everywhere in the apartment, the kitchen and bathroom especially?
Why didn't the dogs alert everywhere then?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 07:41:01 AM
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 08:21:36 AM
Please read carefully. Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa in the living room of G5A and to the car. Samples were taken and DNA was found in the samples. Most likely the samples were blood because Keela was a bloodhound. Three alerts, three results, 100% success rate.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 08:34:52 AM
Please read carefully. Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa in the living room of G5A and to the car. Samples were taken and DNA was found in the samples. Most likely the samples were blood because Keela was a bloodhound. Three alerts, three results, 100% success rate.
"most likely" again is meaningless
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 08, 2015, 09:02:36 AM
Some handlers may cue deliberately, some may cue accidentally, but nowhere in my post do I accuse Grime of deliberate cueing, so please spend a few more hours trawling through my posts for any evidence of my "traducng" of Grime... @)(++(*
Good morning.
Post 55 on the thread didn`t take long in "trawling" time. Nowt else was necessary.
I think you made your views on handlers quite clear.
In a post of yours removed last night, you also defended Oxfordbloo as never accusing the handler in the case of "consciously cuing"..........The posts in which he clarifies "conscious cuing" as "blatant cheating" and links it to the hire car investigation are still there.
At least Oxfordbloo and others on the thread stand by their views on the handler bias which they feel was apparent in the searches.
Doing it by sneaky smearing and abusing me as facetious and needing to grow up when challenged for it is what I call "wriggling."
If Admin object to my view, they are able to remove it..........(as they did your high- and -mighty post to me last night.)
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 08, 2015, 10:31:07 PM
Post 55 on the thread didn`t take long in "trawling" time. Nowt else was necessary.
I think you made your views on handlers quite clear.
In a post of yours removed last night, you also defended Oxfordbloo as never accusing the handler in the case of "consciously cuing"..........The posts in which he clarifies "conscious cuing" as "blatant cheating" and links it to the hire car investigation are still there.
At least Oxfordbloo and others on the thread stand by their views on the handler bias which they feel was apparent in the searches.
Doing it by sneaky smearing and abusing me as facetious and needing to grow up when challenged for it is what I call "wriggling."
If Admin object to my view, they are able to remove it..........(as they did your high- and -mighty post to me last night.)
Would you kindly present evidence of me accusing the handler of deliberately cueing the dogs or admit you have mistepresented my views and apologise. Many thanks.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 10:32:54 PM
of course grime cued the dogs..it's standard practice
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 08, 2015, 10:39:33 PM
One wonders why police send in cadaver dogs into any investigation at all going by some of the "expert opinions" here that they can't be "trusted"
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 10:42:09 PM
One wonders why police send in cadaver dogs into any investigation at all going by some of the "expert opinions" here that they can't be "trusted"
One wonders why ACPO and the NPIA called for a reassessment of the use of cadaver dogs after teir failures in PdL and Jersey and the waste of police time in the Shannon Matthews case.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 08, 2015, 10:52:35 PM
One wonders why ACPO and the NPIA called for a reassessment of the use of cadaver dogs after teir failures in PdL and Jersey and the waste of police time in the Shannon Matthews case.
You may, I dont deal in jokes, just unanswered questions
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 08, 2015, 10:53:39 PM
Would you kindly present evidence of me accusing the handler of deliberately cueing the dogs or admit you have mistepresented my views and apologise. Many thanks.
You`ve represented your own views.
No chance.
Good night.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 08, 2015, 10:55:46 PM
One wonders why police send in cadaver dogs into any investigation at all going by some of the "expert opinions" here that they can't be "trusted"
Because they are not aware of the wealth of knowledge about the unreliability of cadaver dogs on this forum and to coin a phrase "this is where it's at baby"? or They believe cadaver dogs are a useful tool? Of course according to Sky News ACPO and NPIA are very unhappy with the performance of cadaver woofers. One wonders what the rest of the worlds law enforcement agencies think? In one form or another such dogs had been in operation for up to 20 years before the McCann case.......join up the dots. I am sure some on here could obtain gainful employment advising the FBI, the RCMP and the US Military.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: mercury on May 09, 2015, 11:37:30 PM
Because they are not aware of the wealth of knowledge about the unreliability of cadaver dogs on this forum and to coin a phrase "this is where it's at baby"? or They believe cadaver dogs are a useful tool? Of course according to Sky News ACPO and NPIA are very unhappy with the performance of cadaver woofers. One wonders what the rest of the worlds law enforcement agencies think? In one form or another such dogs had been in operation for up to 20 years before the McCann case.......join up the dots. I am sure some on here could obtain gainful employment advising the FBI, the RCMP and the US Military.
Do I detect a smidgeon of sarcasm here perchance?
8(>((
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 12:50:55 AM
of course grime cued the dogs..it's standard practice
The following extract is taken from the comprehensive overview of Forensics by Dr Zakaria Erzinclioglu (Forensics - True Crime Scene Investigations: Carlton/ Sevenoaks, 2004) and illustrates perfectly clearly how those with a professional concern for the appropriate deployment of dogs in law enforcement, have a rather clearer understanding of experimental verification and how to garner evidence than do their amateur critics. And in that category I do not hesitate to include members of the Judiciary.
"Cloths are handed to each of the people involved in the experiment; they handle them and then place them in special jars, with each cloth in a separate jar. The jars are placed in a row in the experiment room and the dog and handler come in. The dog sniffs each jar in turn and then identifies correctly the jar with the right cloth... the jars are moved around in the absence of the dog, who returns with his handler and correctly identifies the cloth.
"These results are very impressive, but, to my mind, the results of the next experiment are the most impressive of all. The jar with the 'right' cloth is removed completely, leaving all the other jars, plus another to keep the number constant. What will the dog do now?
"As with the other experiments, the dog is led by its handler into the room. The dog sniffs each jar in turn. It is puzzled. It starts again, sniffing each jar diligently. It stops and looks up at its handler and then looks back at the jars, It then starts to whine to its owner and walks away from the jar; no doubt it feels it has failed in its task.
"But it has not; it has succeeded brilliantly, for the dog has not chosen a second best, a nearest odour to the one it was seeking. The smell was either present in one of the jars or it was not. It is as simple as that. The dog would not identify a false jar even to please its handler; it would rather fail than do that."
This author goes on to say, "I believe that the use of dog evidence in British courts would be a great step forward in the fight against crime." He concludes the chapter thus:
"Attempts have been made to produce a machine - an electronic nose - that can do what a dog does. These devices have been very successful in determining whether a food product, such as wine or cheese, is fresh and in a fit condition to be consumed. However, their application to criminal investigation has not yet been demonstrated. A dog is still the more reliable tool."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id260.html
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 05:31:47 AM
Has a consensus being reached yet? As to whether the dog alerts were "in any way" significant?
No consensus is possible.
There are two possible views
1/ The Scientific and Judicial one that dogs are useful tools in discovery of evidence, but with awareness of the fact tat all measurement is less than perfect and that there will be an error rate in any sequence of dog alerts. These errors will be caused by simple errors that all organisms are open to and miscommunication between handler and dog.
2/ Contrary to Scientific and Judicial rules, Dogs are Gods who never make any errors. Handlers are so perfect that unlike every assessment of human animal behaviour they alone are totally free of any bias or cueing. Dog alerts are so important they even override the absence of true forensic evidence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 05:45:32 AM
The following extract is taken from the comprehensive overview of Forensics by (Forensics - True Crime Scene Investigations: Carlton/ Sevenoaks, 2004) and illustrates perfectly clearly how those with a professional concern for the appropriate deployment of dogs in law enforcement, have a rather clearer understanding of experimental verification and how to garner evidence than do their amateur critics. And in that category I do not hesitate to include members of the Judiciary.
"Cloths are handed to each of the people involved in the experiment; they handle them and then place them in special jars, with each cloth in a separate jar. The jars are placed in a row in the experiment room and the dog and handler come in. The dog sniffs each jar in turn and then identifies correctly the jar with the right cloth... the jars are moved around in the absence of the dog, who returns with his handler and correctly identifies the cloth.
"These results are very impressive, but, to my mind, the results of the next experiment are the most impressive of all. The jar with the 'right' cloth is removed completely, leaving all the other jars, plus another to keep the number constant. What will the dog do now?
"As with the other experiments, the dog is led by its handler into the room. The dog sniffs each jar in turn. It is puzzled. It starts again, sniffing each jar diligently. It stops and looks up at its handler and then looks back at the jars, It then starts to whine to its owner and walks away from the jar; no doubt it feels it has failed in its task.
"But it has not; it has succeeded brilliantly, for the dog has not chosen a second best, a nearest odour to the one it was seeking. The smell was either present in one of the jars or it was not. It is as simple as that. The dog would not identify a false jar even to please its handler; it would rather fail than do that."
This author goes on to say, "I believe that the use of dog evidence in British courts would be a great step forward in the fight against crime." He concludes the chapter thus:
"Attempts have been made to produce a machine - an electronic nose - that can do what a dog does. These devices have been very successful in determining whether a food product, such as wine or cheese, is fresh and in a fit condition to be consumed. However, their application to criminal investigation has not yet been demonstrated. A dog is still the more reliable tool."
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id260.html
Dr Zakaria Erzinclioglu was a specialist in - insects.
He worked in Forensic entomology. He wrote some popular books on forensics. He did no research onto dog behaviour, merely summarising for the non specialist public. His writings are neither investigations nor peer reviewed.
There are a number of blinded peer reviewed scientific articles by specialists in animal behaviour that do consider the issue. Erzinclioglu's summary ignores those papers that cast doubt on the accuracy of dog alerts.
Dr Zakaria Erzinclioglu was a specialist in - insects.
He worked in Forensic entomology. He wrote some popular books on forensics. He did no research onto dog behaviour, merely summarising for the non specialist public. His writings are neither investigations nor peer reviewed.
There are a number of blinded peer reviewed scientific articles by specialists in animal behaviour that do consider the issue. Erzinclioglu's summary ignores those papers that cast doubt on the accuracy of dog alerts.
No, it goes the other way. I am uncertain how reliable the dogs are. If you maintain they are error free, please provide the evidence. Until proved error free they must be assumed to be error prone. That is hiw science works.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2015, 07:23:31 AM
No, it goes the other way. I am uncertain how reliable the dogs are. If you maintain they are error free, please provide the evidence. Until proved error free they must be assumed to be error prone. That is hiw science works.
I'll tell you the problem I'm having with your opinions.
Firstly, 'science' is your mantra, but you seem unaware of the difficulties arising when attempting 'scientific' studies of people and animals as opposed to studying 'things'. That's why I want links to the studies you are quoting.
Secondly, you are assuming that a few studies done on a few handlers and dogs can be applied to all handlers and dogs. That would depend on sample sizes and methodology being adequate. Another reason why I would like to see the studies.
Thirdly, even if the data is perfectly fine, does it definitely apply to Eddie and Keela in particular, and to these alerts in particular? None of us know, so we know nothing more at the end of it all except that some dogs in some situations gave false alerts.
Please note that I have never said that these types of dogs are error-free, so I have no need to support that view. You say they are, and you refer to studies but refuse completely to provide links. I can only assume you cannot.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on May 10, 2015, 07:26:20 AM
I'll tell you the problem I'm having with your opinions.
Firstly, 'science' is your mantra, but you seem unaware of the difficulties arising when attempting 'scientific' studies of people and animals as opposed to studying 'things'. That's why I want links to the studies you are quoting.
Secondly, you are assuming that a few studies done on a few handlers and dogs can be applied to all handlers and dogs. That would depend on sample sizes and methodology being adequate. Another reason why I would like to see the studies.
Thirdly, even if the data is perfectly fine, does it definitely apply to Eddie and Keela in particular, and to these alerts in particular? None of us know, so we know nothing more at the end of it all except that some dogs in some situations gave false alerts.
Please note that I have never said that these types of dogs are error-free, so I have no need to support that view. You say they are, and you refer to studies but refuse completely to provide links. I can only assume you cannot.
You misunderstand how science works at its most basic. It is founded on Socratic Ignorance. The initial position for any scientific investigation is 'I do not know anything'. Then I or someone else says 'maybe so and so is the case'. That thesis having been made, information is sought to support that view. Now se know from the case of the Black Swan that induction (continued production of merely supportive information) is a common sense way of supporting truth, but we know from logic that this is ineffective (the sun will rise tomorrow because it has always risen, all swans that have been observed are white, therefore all swans are white). So we then move towards what is known as the principle of falsification which introduces deduction in addition to induction. By this we mean that we look at the thesis and consider what fact would destroy the thesis and then seek to falsify the thesis in every way possible to human reason and experimentation. Ideas that pass this test become scientific fact. This is as applicable to human sciences as to physical s Jencks, the difference only being in methods of experimentation, the underlying rationale being the same for both.
So the question is "what do we know about dog alerts to different odours" and we (I) start from the position that we know nothing about this. You (or other investigators) assert that there is a relationship between alerts and odours present, so start out finding supportive evidence (induction) of which there is plenty. But to prove any reliability, the thesis needs to survive falsification (introducing deduction). This requires asserters to defend their thesis against sceptics who will say "what level of certainty if any", "what about cueing", "how do we explain false positives and false negatives", and so on.
So, I am a sceptic- I do not know how effective scent dogs are because I have learned as a scientist to dismiss common sense and actually derive facts from the world by scientific method. As such I have nothing to prove.
So, you (or other asserters) bear the burden of proof (as in law).
If you believe dogs are 'x' effective, prove it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2015, 07:53:40 AM
So we then move towards what is known as the principle of falsification which introduces deduction in addition to induction. By this we mean that we look at the thesis and consider what fact would destroy the thesis and then seek to falsify the thesis in every way possible to human reason and experimentation. Ideas that pass this test become scientific fact. This is as applicable to human sciences as to physical s Jencks, the difference only being in methods of experimentation, the underlying rationale being the same for both.
It is true that social 'scientists' have attempted to study people using 'scientific' methods. It's not true to say this has been successful, or that it ever can be.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 09:16:46 AM
It is true that social 'scientists' have attempted to study people using 'scientific' methods. It's not true to say this has been successful, or that it ever can be.
That may be your view (and that of Thatcher) but psychologists, sociologists, economists, psephologists, anthropologists, geographers, historians and many other academics give the lie to this.
But that aside you have totally missed what I have said. The dogs are either accurate or inaccurate. We can decide that either by folk belief (common sense) or scientific processes. One is guesswork, the other leads to knowledge.
Knowledge is belief justified by some means or another.
Scientific knowledge is justified by testing (empiricism) Common sense is justified by guesswork Religious knowledge by belief system
And so on.
Most intelligent people used applied empiricism- scientific method.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2015, 10:45:26 AM
That may be your view (and that of Thatcher) but psychologists, sociologists, economists, psephologists, anthropologists, geographers, historians and many other academics give the lie to this.
But that aside you have totally missed what I have said. The dogs are either accurate or inaccurate. We can decide that either by folk belief (common sense) or scientific processes. One is guesswork, the other leads to knowledge.
Knowledge is belief justified by some means or another.
Scientific knowledge is justified by testing (empiricism) Common sense is justified by guesswork Religious knowledge by belief system
And so on.
Most intelligent people used applied empiricism- scientific method.
A lot of intelligent people have been questioning the usefulness of empiricism when applied to the study of people for years. Your pronouncements about handlers and dogs arise from studies. If the studies are inadequate the findings are inadequate. Sociologists, whom I know about, reject using the 'scientific method' you promote because people do not behave in a certain way, their behaviour is random and cannot be predicted or replicated like objects in the natural world. A scientific study of the natural world produces the same results if the same conditions are present. a study of handlers and dogs cannot be replicated, even with the same subjects. People think, react, try to please, try to understand, objects don't.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 10:48:07 AM
A lot of intelligent people have been questioning the usefulness of empiricism when applied to the study of people for years. Your pronouncements about handlers and dogs arise from studies. If the studies are inadequate the findings are inadequate. Sociologists, whom I know about, reject using the 'scientific method' you promote because people do not behave in a certain way, their behaviour is random and cannot be predicted or replicated like objects in the natural world. A scientific study of the natural world produces the same results if the same conditions are present. a study of handlers and dogs cannot be replicated, even with the same subjects. People think, react, try to please, try to understand, objects don't.
You suggest that some sociologists reject empiricism.
Please provide a cite for this claim.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2015, 11:22:08 AM
You suggest that some sociologists reject empiricism.
Please provide a cite for this claim.
Google is your friend @)(++(* but as i'm quite helpful here is just a taster of the problem which sociologists have identified with empiricism in the social sciences;
Thus, whilst empirical methods exist as adept to uncover cause and affect relationships in the physical sciences, between inanimate objects which react in a constant and consistent manner, the analysis of society and human behaviour is much more problematic. For both the theorist and the social actor, do not exist as inanimate or passive objects living in a social vacuum, but instead, exist as endowed with values and consciousness. As such, the behaviour of social actors is often sporadic and thus difficult to replicate and verify. https://www.essex.ac.uk/sociology/documents/pdf/ug_journal/vol7/2012SC301_DanielHendey_FINAL.pdf
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2015, 11:33:12 AM
No, it goes the other way. I am uncertain how reliable the dogs are. If you maintain they are error free, please provide the evidence. Until proved error free they must be assumed to be error prone. That is hiw science works.
Provide proof that Eddie has not alerted to cadaver scent. SY are looking for the proof.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 11:43:12 AM
That statement is fallacious and has been done to death on here.
If it's fallacious, perhaps you could explain the scientific methodology one would need to utilize in order to prove that Eddie did not alert to a cadaver in Apartment 5a?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 12:23:40 PM
If it's fallacious, perhaps you could explain the scientific methodology one would need to utilize in order to prove that Eddie did not alert to a cadaver in Apartment 5a?
If Madeleine turns up alive Eddie was wrong.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 10, 2015, 12:28:22 PM
I think it is with the many alerts from Eddie and Keela also alerting behind the sofa and in the boot. The source of scent can escape from the passenger door from the boot and there's unidentified hairs that match the missing girl's hair.
Reference objects I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her.
No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.
Conclusion In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2015, 12:42:50 PM
Provide proof that Eddie has not alerted to cadaver scent. SY are looking for the proof.
some negatives can be easily proved...the above however is a chocolate teapot argument...the last resort of the desperate...similar to...prove god does not exist
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2015, 12:52:21 PM
some negatives can be easily proved...the above however is a chocolate teapot argument...the last resort of the desperate...similar to...prove god does not exist
A detective finds unknown information and the dogs have given their evidence. The dogs find the scent and the police confirms the source. They will believe the source is the missing person after all other possibilities have been investigated.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 12:59:26 PM
some negatives can be easily proved...the above however is a chocolate teapot argument...the last resort of the desperate...similar to...prove god does not exist
Good old Bertrand Russell.
He makes the point so well. Maybe we should quote it.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 01:01:51 PM
Russell's Celestial Teapot argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 01:24:35 PM
If it's fallacious, perhaps you could explain the scientific methodology one would need to utilize in order to prove that Eddie did not alert to a cadaver in Apartment 5a?
Why? what I said has b*****r all to do with Eddie (great jazz Pianist by the way; shame he died so young). I said the statement "you can't prove a negative" is fallacious or if you like folk logic. Do you disagree with that statement? a simple yes or no will do. Try it without using the words Amaral, Eddie, Keela and McCann.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 01:27:29 PM
Why? what I said has b*****r all to do with Eddie (great jazz Pianist by the way; shame he died so young). I said the statement "you can't prove a negative" is fallacious or if you like folk logic. Do you disagree with that statement? a simple yes or no will do. Try it without using the words Amaral, Eddie, Keela and McCann.
Now let me see, believe you or Bertrand Russell?
Hard decision!
Enjoy your celestial teapot....
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 01:35:58 PM
Russell had a rather large domain with a very prescriptive teapot. There are those who show it is folk logic and not reality that "you can't prove a negative" why not address the issue as proven by them? and "Google is your friend". Or even think about it your self for a few seconds.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 01:42:47 PM
Russell had a rather large domain with a very prescriptive teapot. There are those who show it is folk logic and not reality that "you can't prove a negative" why not address the issue as proven by them? and "Google is your friend". Or even think about it your self for a few seconds.
I have thought in great depth about it and understand that so far as empirical science and jurisprudence are concerned, the celestial teapot is commanding. In other arenas it is less so. This is because Forensics and empiricism are closed logically defined domains whereas other realms (religion, belief, etc.) are open non-logical domains.
Enjoy your celestial teapot.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 10, 2015, 02:12:15 PM
I think it is with the many alerts from Eddie and Keela also alerting behind the sofa and in the boot. The source of scent can escape from the passenger door from the boot and there's unidentified hairs that match the missing girl's hair.
Reference objects I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her.
No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.
Conclusion In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/A_L_PALMER.htm
"Similar to" doesn't equate to "match", does it? They were short fragments of hair - too short for mtDNA analysis.
His conclusion was "dunno". Even if they had been hers, innocent explanations would have had to have been ruled out: e.g. hairs from her belongings being moved in the car.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2015, 02:44:59 PM
"Similar to" doesn't equate to "match", does it? They were short fragments of hair - too short for mtDNA analysis.
His conclusion was "dunno". Even if they had been hers, innocent explanations would have had to have been ruled out: e.g. hairs from her belongings being moved in the car.
Clothes are usually packed inside bags and kids clothes were washed on SAT 5 May 2007. There was no hair found on her hairbrush and they didn't rent the car until 27 May. Would seem strange for her hairs to be found there. Was the blanket given back to the McCanns? They have kept that quiet and haven't called the PJ ffin tossers for keeping it @)(++(*
I could see Madeleine now, with her pink princess blanket over her head, the corners pulled together under her chin like a headscarf, singing ‘If I was a girl like you . . .’
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 04:05:48 PM
I have thought in great depth about it and understand that so far as empirical science and jurisprudence are concerned, the celestial teapot is commanding. In other arenas it is less so. This is because Forensics and empiricism are closed logically defined domains whereas other realms (religion, belief, etc.) are open non-logical domains.
Enjoy your celestial teapot.
If you have truly resigned you will not read this but it's worth a run out anyway. There is a school of thought that says: When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Apart from that check out Professor Stephen Hales.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 10, 2015, 04:11:55 PM
Clothes are usually packed inside bags and kids clothes were washed on SAT 5 May 2007. There was no hair found on her hairbrush and they didn't rent the car until 27 May. Would seem strange for her hairs to be found there. Was the blanket given back to the McCanns? They have kept that quiet and haven't called the PJ ffin tossers for keeping it @)(++(*
I could see Madeleine now, with her pink princess blanket over her head, the corners pulled together under her chin like a headscarf, singing ‘If I was a girl like you . . .’
Which hairbrush are you referring to?
I'm not aware that the PJ ever had the blanket. The GNR police dogs apparently had it last.
The hairs found in the Scenic appear to be hair fragments. They weren't deemed long enough for mtDNA analysis. If they had had roots, they could have been sent for nDNA analysis.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 04:18:39 PM
Why? what I said has b*****r all to do with Eddie (great jazz Pianist by the way; shame he died so young). I said the statement "you can't prove a negative" is fallacious or if you like folk logic. Do you disagree with that statement? a simple yes or no will do. Try it without using the words Amaral, Eddie, Keela and McCann.
You want me to post on a thread entitled "Were the dog alerts in any way significant" on the Madeleine McCann section of the forum but you don't want me to reference Eddie, Keela, Amaral or McCann? Why not? Oxford made a statement that you cannot prove a negative in response to Pathfinder's request (or was it Stephen;s?) to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver. You disagreed with Oxford, claiming that it is wrong to say you can't prove a negative, which led to my question - how do we prove scientifically that Eddie did not alert to cadaver? So, over to you...how do we do it?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 10, 2015, 04:50:10 PM
If you have truly resigned you will not read this but it's worth a run out anyway. There is a school of thought that says: When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Apart from that check out Professor Stephen Hales.
Whether academics can prove a negative in an abstract way or not doesn't really alter mundane situations in which people can end up on death row because they can't prove an alibi, don't have the means to disprove an "expert" in court or whatever other concrete situation people may find themselves in.
Re an alibi: Christopher Jeffries didn't have one either and he was under suspicion due to false testimony from the real one.
If someone had stated that I was lurking in PdL that night, the way in which the PT system appears to have worked (in criminal trials) is that I would have had to have provided counter proof that I wasn't.
My use of a phone, Internet or bank card doesn't prove that I wasn't there.
If I had a clear recollection of someone I'd met and who could testify for me or CCTV showing me clearly elsewhere should... but otherwise, what practical proof could I have provided?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 04:56:35 PM
You want me to post on a thread entitled "Were the dog alerts in any way significant" on the Madeleine McCann section of the forum but you don't want me to reference Eddie, Keela, Amaral or McCann? Why not? Oxford made a statement that you cannot prove a negative in response to Pathfinder's request (or was it Stephen;s?) to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver. You disagreed with Oxford, claiming that it is wrong to say you can't prove a negative, which led to my question - how do we prove scientifically that Eddie did not alert to cadaver? So, over to you...how do we do it?
I was arguing with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Do you agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative" was my question to you. As it is a closed ended question you should be able to say yes or no to it. So do you agree with it or not (closed ended again).
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2015, 05:16:03 PM
I was arguing with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Do you agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative" was my question to you. As it is a closed ended question you should be able to say yes or no to it. So do you agree with it or not (closed ended again).
so you were ignoring the rather ridiculous chocolate teapot argument of pathfinder ...but of course he's part of your team
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 05:28:10 PM
I was arguing with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Do you agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative" was my question to you. As it is a closed ended question you should be able to say yes or no to it. So do you agree with it or not (closed ended again).
In the context of a discussion sparked by the command to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour it is correct to say "you can't prove a negative". Did you read the link provided by OxBloo, or could you not be arsed? If Pathfinder had said "prove that the apple is not in the drawer" (as per the example in OxBloo's link) then obviously OxBloo's response would have been incorrect, because it IS possible to prove the veracity of the statement by opening the drawer, but in that instance neither command nor riposte would have been relevant to the discussion at hand. So, to summarise, in the context of the on-topic discussion we were having, YES I agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Now - my question to you requiring a yes or no answer only (as I have obliged you with the same, now you can likewise oblige me) - is it possible to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour? I await your YES or NO response with the almost certain knowledge that your response will be something of a disappointment...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 05:39:05 PM
If you have truly resigned you will not read this but it's worth a run out anyway. There is a school of thought that says: When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”
Apart from that check out Professor Stephen Hales.
Oxford Bloo certainly knew what he was talking about and the fact is (like it or not) is that nothing he said here of any substance was (IMO) successfully refuted by anyone (on either side of the McCann divide). It's a shame he has gone because he succeeded in elevating the standard of debate for a short while. Oh well, I expect he'll be back the next time there's anything worth discussing...
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 10, 2015, 07:50:36 PM
Oxford Bloo certainly knew what he was talking about and the fact is (like it or not) is that nothing he said here of any substance was (IMO) successfully refuted by anyone (on either side of the McCann divide). It's a shame he has gone because he succeeded in elevating the standard of debate for a short while. Oh well, I expect he'll be back the next time there's anything worth discussing...
I wish he hadn't just gone in a puff of smoke as there doesn't appear to be a way of checking back through his posts to find links that I haven't had time to read nor even bookmark.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2015, 08:31:41 PM
I wish he hadn't just gone in a puff of smoke as there doesn't appear to be a way of checking back through his posts to find links that I haven't had time to read nor even bookmark.
He refused to provide links. When I asked for them all I got was ' is your friend'.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 08:39:41 PM
Oxford Bloo certainly knew what he was talking about and the fact is (like it or not) is that nothing he said here of any substance was (IMO) successfully refuted by anyone (on either side of the McCann divide). It's a shame he has gone because he succeeded in elevating the standard of debate for a short while. Oh well, I expect he'll be back the next time there's anything worth discussing...
Little doubt of that; he has been here before.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 09:36:08 PM
In the context of a discussion sparked by the command to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour it is correct to say "you can't prove a negative". Did you read the link provided by OxBloo, or could you not be arsed? If Pathfinder had said "prove that the apple is not in the drawer" (as per the example in OxBloo's link) then obviously OxBloo's response would have been incorrect, because it IS possible to prove the veracity of the statement by opening the drawer, but in that instance neither command nor riposte would have been relevant to the discussion at hand. So, to summarise, in the context of the on-topic discussion we were having, YES I agree with the statement "you can't prove a negative". Now - my question to you requiring a yes or no answer only (as I have obliged you with the same, now you can likewise oblige me) - is it possible to prove that Eddie did not alert to cadaver odour? I await your YES or NO response with the almost certain knowledge that your response will be something of a disappointment...
Sprat me a riddle o. I will consider it and get back to you with an answer qualified in the manner you have qualified your answer.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 10, 2015, 10:28:50 PM
I'm not aware that the PJ ever had the blanket. The GNR police dogs apparently had it last.
The hairs found in the Scenic appear to be hair fragments. They weren't deemed long enough for mtDNA analysis. If they had had roots, they could have been sent for nDNA analysis.
The Twins had a hair cut. Have we forgotten that?
Oh, sorry. The Twins never had a hair cut. That was just McCann spin. They had the twins hair cut because they knew that somedebody would be looking for Madeleine's hair in the car.
Did I actually say that?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carew on May 10, 2015, 10:32:50 PM
Oh, sorry. The Twins never had a hair cut. That was just McCann spin. They had the twins hair cut because they knew that somedebody would be looking for Madeleine's hair in the car.
Did I actually say that?
Well, yes you actually did just say it.......The question is , why and what does it mean?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 10, 2015, 10:37:16 PM
Any more references to OxfordBloo are going to be deleted, by me. And believe me, I am one of his greatest fans. But he bailed out. So it is done. Okay?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 10, 2015, 10:40:03 PM
I talk a load of rubbish sometimes. As do you all. But you know precisely what I meant.
Well, yes of course I knew.........but the snide aspect of some posts I do find rather more "fair game for a response" than are the loads o` rubbish we all talk sometimes.
(I should resist the temptation to comment though. )
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 11:46:07 PM
Ireally couldn't do a better job of explaining it as He Who Must Not Be Mentioned did, several times. I suggest you re-read those posts and try to understand.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 11:46:31 PM
Well, yes of course I knew.........but the snide aspect of some posts I do find rather more "fair game for a response" than are the loads o` rubbish we all talk sometimes.
(I should resist the temptation to comment though. )
So why try to take me on? I am probably the best that you are ever going to get. And I am more on your side than you will ever appreciate.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Eleanor on May 11, 2015, 12:19:42 AM
Okay. That's it. My patience is worn out. Just get back On Topic. And that actually includes me.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 08:30:45 AM
Ireally couldn't do a better job of explaining it as He Who Must Not Be Mentioned did, several times. I suggest you re-read those posts and try to understand.
I understood completely thank you. The contention that handlers and dogs are not always right is a valid one, particularly when alerts cannot be supported by forensic evidence. No-one knows if the dogs were right or wrong.
Trying to 'prove' that they were wrong by referring to 'studies' is no help for two reasons. Firstly, 'scientific' studies which work in the natural world are not applicable to the study of people. Even if the studies were well run and replicable, they tell us nothing about these two dogs, only about dogs and handlers in general.
Perhaps you would like to refute my points?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 11, 2015, 08:50:19 AM
I understood completely thank you. The contention that handlers and dogs are not always right is a valid one, particularly when alerts cannot be supported by forensic evidence. No-one knows if the dogs were right or wrong.
Trying to 'prove' that they were wrong by referring to 'studies' is no help for two reasons. Firstly, 'scientific' studies which work in the natural world are not applicable to the study of people. Even if the studies were well run and replicable, they tell us nothing about these two dogs, only about dogs and handlers in general.
Perhaps you would like to refute my points?
What is your interpretation of what Grime said to the Mail on Sunday. It seems to me it is an admission that because he is human - he is not immune from making mistakes in his own field of work - and is therefore not claiming 100% accuracy.
Quote 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.’ unquote
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 09:11:34 AM
What is your interpretation of what Grime said to the Mail on Sunday. It seems to me it is an admission that because he is human - he is not immune from making mistakes in his own field of work - and is therefore not claiming 100% accuracy.
Quote 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.’ unquote
I interpret that as him saying no-one is right 100% of the time? It means nothing in relation to the McCann case though, as we have no idea whether he and his dogs were right or wrong in that case. Could be either.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Benice on May 11, 2015, 09:40:59 AM
I interpret that as him saying no-one is right 100% of the time? It means nothing in relation to the McCann case though, as we have no idea whether he and his dogs were right or wrong in that case. Could be either.
A fair answer G-unit - thank you. At least you don't claim that because Eddie alerted there is no question whatsoever that a dead body MUST have been in 5A - which is what so many sceptics still claim on a regular basis.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: stephen25000 on May 11, 2015, 10:19:01 AM
A fair answer G-unit - thank you. At least you don't claim that because Eddie alerted there is no question whatsoever that a dead body MUST have been in 5A - which is what so many sceptics still claim on a regular basis.
Do you accept there could have been a dead body in the apartment ?
The logic works both ways.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 11, 2015, 10:22:41 AM
A fair answer G-unit - thank you. At least you don't claim that because Eddie alerted there is no question whatsoever that a dead body MUST have been in 5A - which is what so many sceptics still claim on a regular basis.
I have never claimed that Eddie was infallible, or that his alert proved anything. What I do say is that Eddie's alert shouldn't be completely dismissed.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 12:36:24 PM
I have never claimed that Eddie was infallible, or that his alert proved anything. What I do say is that Eddie's alert shouldn't be completely dismissed.
more importantly it should not be used by amaral to convince people that maddie died in the apartment. I'm sure that most of those donating believe his lies re the dogs
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 12:47:42 PM
more importantly it should not be used by amaral to convince people that maddie died in the apartment. I'm sure that most of those donating believe his lies re the dogs
There is no proof at all to tell us what happened to Madeleine. There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted or that she woke and wandered. Any evidence which does exist is circumstantial and suggests that she may have died in the apartment, and the dog alerts are part of that circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2015, 01:00:30 PM
more importantly it should not be used by amaral to convince people that maddie died in the apartment. I'm sure that most of those donating believe his lies re the dogs
Which in my opinion is the only significance which can be assigned to the dog alerts. They have been used exclusively to malign innocent people.
To that effect the handler's statement regarding the significance of the alerts is totally ignored and the forensic evidence or rather the lack of it is totally ignored.
What may possibly have been an initial misunderstanding has attained the status of Holy Writ despite all indications to the contrary ... decidedly odd.
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 01:22:43 PM
There is no proof at all to tell us what happened to Madeleine. There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted or that she woke and wandered. Any evidence which does exist is circumstantial and suggests that she may have died in the apartment, and the dog alerts are part of that circumstantial evidence.
could you explain what evidence suggests maddie died in the apartment
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2015, 02:12:25 PM
I understood completely thank you. The contention that handlers and dogs are not always right is a valid one, particularly when alerts cannot be supported by forensic evidence. No-one knows if the dogs were right or wrong.
Trying to 'prove' that they were wrong by referring to 'studies' is no help for two reasons. Firstly, 'scientific' studies which work in the natural world are not applicable to the study of people. Even if the studies were well run and replicable, they tell us nothing about these two dogs, only about dogs and handlers in general.
Perhaps you would like to refute my points?
Perhaps you could tell me who here has cited any study as proof that the dogs were wrong, and we can move on from there...?
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 02:26:21 PM
so that's all....an alert that has no evidential reliability...I think the aliens are more probably responsible
An alert is circumstantial evidence, or can lead to a case being made using other circumstantial evidence, particularly where there is no evidence to the contrary;
After a massive search of the farm and surrounding countryside Gloucestershire Constabulary found no evidence of Kate, 55, inside or outside the property.
There were no traces of blood, or signs of a struggle, but the cadaver dog indicated to police that a dead body had been in the living room.
Gloucestershire Constabulary drew together a mass of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Prout having strangled his wife with his bare hands and burying her body.
A jury of 11 men and women found him guilty by a majority of 10 to one and he was sentenced to life in prison. He must serve a minimum of 18 years.
Read more: http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Cadaver-dog-sniffed-death-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html#ixzz3Zq7zU0mK Follow us: @GlosCitizen on Twitter | GlosCitizen on Facebook
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 03:31:23 PM
An alert is circumstantial evidence, or can lead to a case being made using other circumstantial evidence, particularly where there is no evidence to the contrary;
After a massive search of the farm and surrounding countryside Gloucestershire Constabulary found no evidence of Kate, 55, inside or outside the property.
There were no traces of blood, or signs of a struggle, but the cadaver dog indicated to police that a dead body had been in the living room.
Gloucestershire Constabulary drew together a mass of circumstantial evidence that pointed to Prout having strangled his wife with his bare hands and burying her body.
A jury of 11 men and women found him guilty by a majority of 10 to one and he was sentenced to life in prison. He must serve a minimum of 18 years.
Read more: http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Cadaver-dog-sniffed-death-Prout-home/story-11860269-detail/story.html#ixzz3Zq7zU0mK Follow us: @GlosCitizen on Twitter | GlosCitizen on Facebook
who says an alert is circumstantial evidence...grime doesn't...he says it has no evidential reliability. In the prout case there was a mass of circumstantial evidence......where is the circumstantial evidence that maddie died in the apartment...there is none
Title: Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
Post by: Carana on May 11, 2015, 05:31:04 PM
Not from PT criminal law:
Circumstantial Evidence Definition: Evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which have been proven.
Related Terms: Evidence, Direct Evidence
Evidence which may allow a trial judge or jury to deduce or logically infer a certain fact from other established facts, which have been proven.
Justice Best in the 1820 case, King v Burdett: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CircumstantialEvidence.aspx
Circumstantial evidence Law
Circumstantial evidence, in law, evidence not drawn from direct observation of a fact in issue. If a witness testifies that he saw a defendant fire a bullet into the body of a person who then died, this is direct testimony of material facts in murder, and the only question is whether the witness is telling the truth. If, however, the witness is able to testify only that he heard the shot and that he arrived on the scene seconds later to see the accused standing over the corpse with a smoking pistol in his hand, the evidence is circumstantial; the accused may have been shooting at the escaping killer or merely have been a bystander who picked up the weapon after the killer had dropped it.
The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof. See also hearsay. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/118468/circumstantial-evidence
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Circumstantial evidence is best explained by saying what it is not - it is not direct evidence from a witness who saw or heard something. Circumstantial evidence is a fact that can be used to infer another fact.
Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. E.g., X is suing his wife, Y, for a divorce, claiming she is having an affair with Z. Z's fingerprints are found on a book in X and Y's bedroom. A judge or jury may infer that Z was in the bedroom. The fingerprints are circumstantial evidence of Z's presence in the bedroom. Circumstantial evidence is usually not as good as direct evidence (an eyewitness saw Z in the bedroom) because it is easy to make the wrong inference
Y may have loaned Z the book and then carried it back to the bedroom herself after getting it back.
Circumstantial evidence is generally admissible in court unless the connection between the fact and the inference is too weak to be of help in deciding the case. Many convictions for various crimes have rested largely on circumstantial evidence.
CIRCUMSTANCES
The particulars which accompany a fact.
The facts proved are either possible or impossible, ordinary and probable, or extraordinary and improbable, recent or ancient; they may have happened near us or afar off; they are public or private, permanent or transitory, clear and simple or complicated; they are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less influence the mind in forming a judgment. And in some instances these circumstances assume the character of irresistible evidence; where, for example, a woman was found dead in a room with every mark of having met with a violent death, the presence of another person at the scene of action was made manifest by the bloody mark of a left hand visible on her left arm.
These points ought to be carefully examined in order to form a correct opinion. The first question ought to be; is the fact possible? If so, are there any circumstances which render it impossible? If the facts are impossible, the witness ought not to be credited. If, for example, a man should swear that he saw the deceased shoot himself with his own pistol and upon an examination of the ball which killed him it should be found too large to enter into the pistol, the witness ought not to be credited. Or if one should swear that another had been guilty of an impossible crime. http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm