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: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 06:44:59 AM
Title: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 06:44:59 AM
Let's get some facts out first. The only alerts that count for cadaver odour as a possibility are those that have Eddie alerting and Keela not. Only a couple of all the alerts indicate the possibility of cadaver odour. All others could be explained by the presence of minute traces of blood.
So only two alerts indicate a cadaver. And these were in the McCann apartment. So we do not have multiple alerts to be explained, only a couple. Every scent dog has a false positive and false negative rate and that alone is enough to explain these anomalies.
I agree that if it were multiple alerts that indicated cadaver, that would be suspicious, but in a series of alerts one would expect some errors.
Now let us look at blood contamination. No sign of major blood contamination was found in the McCann apartment, only tiny amounts. There is no evidence of a bloodbath, merely that of shaving accidents and stubbed toes.
Now we have to ask why there were no alerts elsewhere. Are we really asked to believe that every other apartment was totally free of such minute contamination from bloody accidents that happen every day? The fact that Keela did not alert anywhere else suggests that there is a major difference between the McCanns apartment and the others- Grime knew which apartment was under suspicion. Similarly with the cars, Grime knew which car was the McCanns and repeatedly called Eddie back to their car in a way not done with the others.
The investigation was hampered by the fact that Grime had knowledge which he unconsciously transferred to the dogs.
My favourite scientifically valid experiment on scent dogs was one where they and their handlers were asked to run a course of a series of patches of material and determine whether or not they bad the target odour. In the first course of the experiment no information was allowed to the handlers and no positive reactions occurred with any dog handler pair. In the second run the handlers were told in advance which patches had the target scent. This time the dogs were nearly totally accurate.
Except there was no target scent at all; all patches were uncontaminated.
The only 'accuracy' was that the handler dog pairs identified the scent on the patches the handlers had been given the false information on.
This unconscious cueing even has a name which has been known for over a century 'The Clever Hans Effect'. Google it.
This is why dog alerts are just too uncertain to be admitted as evidence alone without confirmation.
247
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 03, 2015, 09:47:42 AM
Let's get some facts out first. The only alerts that count for cadaver odour as a possibility are those that have Eddie alerting and Keela not. Only a couple of all the alerts indicate the possibility of cadaver odour. All others could be explained by the presence of minute traces of blood.
So only two alerts indicate a cadaver. And these were in the McCann apartment. So we do not have multiple alerts to be explained, only a couple. Every scent dog has a false positive and false negative rate and that alone is enough to explain these anomalies.
I agree that if it were multiple alerts that indicated cadaver, that would be suspicious, but in a series of alerts one would expect some errors.
Now let us look at blood contamination. No sign of major blood contamination was found in the McCann apartment, only tiny amounts. There is no evidence of a bloodbath, merely that of shaving accidents and stubbed toes.
Now we have to ask why there were no alerts elsewhere. Are we really asked to believe that every other apartment was totally free of such minute contamination from bloody accidents that happen every day? The fact that Keela did not alert anywhere else suggests that there is a major difference between the McCanns apartment and the others- Grime knew which apartment was under suspicion. Similarly with the cars, Grime knew which car was the McCanns and repeatedly called Eddie back to their car in a way not done with the others.
The investigation was hampered by the fact that Grime had knowledge which he unconsciously transferred to the dogs.
My favourite scientifically valid experiment on scent dogs was one where they and their handlers were asked to run a course of a series of patches of material and determine whether or not they bad the target odour. In the first course of the experiment no information was allowed to the handlers and no positive reactions occurred with any dog handler pair. In the second run the handlers were told in advance which patches had the target scent. This time the dogs were nearly totally accurate.
Except there was no target scent at all; all patches were uncontaminated.
The only 'accuracy' was that the handler dog pairs identified the scent on the patches the handlers had been given the false information on.
This unconscious cueing even has a name which has been known for over a century 'The Clever Hans Effect'. Google it.
This is why dog alerts are just too uncertain to be admitted as evidence alone without confirmation.
Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:08:46 AM
Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............
No he did not say that the alert was for cadaver. Unless you can provide a cite.
There was Gerry's blood in the car on the key fob which easily explains any reaction from both dogs, both of whom alert to blood.
Everything is circumstantial
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 03, 2015, 10:22:27 AM
Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............
Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............
this is a prime example of someone with strong beliefs who simply does not understand the evidence...a typical sceptic
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:26:14 AM
It is one of the problems with fighting ignorance that people can become so set in their views they can no longer interpret evidence that is contrary to their view and interpret as supportive to their view that which destroys it completely. There is a term for this- cognitive dissonance.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 03, 2015, 10:33:09 AM
It is one of the problems with fighting ignorance that people can become so set in their views they can no longer interpret evidence that is contrary to their view and interpret as supportive to their view that which destroys it completely. There is a term for this- cognitive dissonance.
Exactly. Actually reading Grimes report and the associated forensic tests and commenatary in a dispassionate way puts the "hate" campaign aginst the McCanns in perspective.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:35:45 AM
Exactly. Actually reading Grimes report and the associated forensic tests and commenatary in a dispassionate way puts the "hate" campaign aginst the McCanns in perspective.
The same can be said of a dispassionate reading of the assessments of the DNA evidence.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 03, 2015, 10:44:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:49:38 AM
Which bit are your referring to? The FSS report on the samples, or the reports relating to a reference sample for Madeleine.
Both of which have been wilfully misinterpreted. I can understand that in some of the sceptics, but Amaral had no excuse.
Both Amaral and other McCann accusers have misinterpreted all the DNA evidence whether from ignorance or from anger. Nothing in the Forensic blood analyses support any case against the McCanns as anyone who understands LCN DNA would know. Suggesting that it is in any manner probative of any wrong doing is a sign of genetics and biological ignorance.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 03, 2015, 10:52:56 AM
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.
Suggestive not Probative.
"no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
No corroborative evidence was found. Therefore although the alert was suggestive it could have been otherwise. It is not probative.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: mercury on May 04, 2015, 06:36:29 AM
Let's get some facts out first. The only alerts that count for cadaver odour as a possibility are those that have Eddie alerting and Keela not. Only a couple of all the alerts indicate the possibility of cadaver odour. All others could be explained by the presence of minute traces of blood.
Blatant crap cadaver dog odour alerts amount to seven WITHOUT corroboration from a blood dog that they were blood not two
Wardrobe Garden Items of clothing x 3 Verandah outside outside parents bedroom Soft toy
what where you saying about "facts" ?
[/quote]
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 08:15:48 AM
To indicate cadaver odour, Eddie must react and Keela must ignore. Are you saying that each of those alerts were Eddie positive, Keela negative?
You asserted that only a couple (I presume two) of the cadaver dog alerts could be atributed to cadaver odour....the rest to blood.
I said thats wrong There were seven WITHOUT a blood dog cooroboratioon and thats not forgetting a blood dog corroboratuin does not not automatically mean NOT a cadaver scent in the same place
We know the cadaver dog alerted in several (not a couple) places either where the blood dog did not alert or where the files do not tell us if it did or not What we know from the files: ie where both dogs documented as utlised cadaver dog alert with blood dog alert = 2 places, parents' car and living room flat 5a cadaver dog alert with no blood dog alert = clothes x 3, oarebts' bedroom in fkat 5a = 4
What we know from the files of only the cadaver dog utlised Cadaver dog alerted in the verandah of flat 5a Cadaver dog alerted in the garden of flat 5a Cadaver dog alerted to a soft toy
On balance the cadaver dog alerted qute a few times, and as I posted yesterday or so not once anywhere else
So, there you go amigo. I have to run to work now.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 09:49:45 AM
You asserted that only a couple (I presume two) of the cadaver dog alerts could be atributed to cadaver odour....the rest to blood.
I said thats wrong There were seven WITHOUT a blood dog cooroboratioon and thats not forgetting a blood dog corroboratuin does not not automatically mean NOT a cadaver scent in the same place
We know the cadaver dog alerted in several (not a couple) places either where the blood dog did not alert or where the files do not tell us if it did or not What we know from the files: ie where both dogs documented as utlised cadaver dog alert with blood dog alert = 2 places, parents' car and living room flat 5a cadaver dog alert with no blood dog alert = clothes x 3, oarebts' bedroom in fkat 5a = 4
What we know from the files of only the cadaver dog utlised Cadaver dog alerted in the verandah of flat 5a Cadaver dog alerted in the garden of flat 5a Cadaver dog alerted to a soft toy
On balance the cadaver dog alerted qute a few times, and as I posted yesterday or so not once anywhere else
So, there you go amigo. I have to run to work now.
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: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 04, 2015, 10:30:23 AM
The last time SY were on site in Praia da Luz they were looking for her remains. I don't call that much of a success.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 10:47:07 AM
Actually no Brietta. The last time SY were on site in Praia da Luz they were looking for her remains. I don't call that much of a success.
I must have missed that announcement by Grange. Could you provide a cite for it.
Of course they may not have been searching for Madeleine, but seeking to exclude possibilities and thus increase the likelihood that she was not dead and buried in PdL.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 11:01:35 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.
If you're going to show statistics use Eddie's not dogs in general. Eddie was EVRD. He was specially trained with new scientific techniques. Eddie alerted to a body that was in a room for only 1 hour before disposal in the Harron case (forensics found nowt!). He found evidence in the burned out car that forensics missed in the same case. Eddie has proved he finds evidence where forensics don't!
As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’ (Madeleine)
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). They are scientifically based and rely on how dogs smell and the chemicals involved. "An enhanced dog goes through much more training and is a lot more discriminating about smells, basically its nose is super sensitive. Other dogs have to do other police duties but mine work full-time in this area, making them very sharp and highly skilled."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
Pseudo scent is an artificially chemically produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on my dogs they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 11:07:35 AM
If you're going to show statistics use Eddie's not dogs in general. Eddie was EVRD. He was specially trained with new scientific techniques. Eddie alerted to a body that was in a room for only 1 hour before disposal in the Harron case (forensics found nowt!). He found evidence in the burned out car that forensics missed in the same case. Eddie has proved he finds evidence where forensics don't!
As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’ (Madeleine)
The specialist training techniques - which are highly confidential - were developed by Eddie's handler Martin Grime, along with the UK's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) and America's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). They are scientifically based and rely on how dogs smell and the chemicals involved. "An enhanced dog goes through much more training and is a lot more discriminating about smells, basically its nose is super sensitive. Other dogs have to do other police duties but mine work full-time in this area, making them very sharp and highly skilled."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7263355.stm
Pseudo scent is an artificially chemically produced product that its manufacturers claim to resemble 'dead body scent'. Although some cadaver dog trainers have had limited success with its use in training, when tested on my dogs they showed no interest and it is not used as a training aid for them.
There are no statistics for Eddie.
All scent dogs are prone to various errors.
The rest of your post does not speak to the issue.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 04, 2015, 11:17:40 AM
The rest of your post does not speak to the issue.
It proves that Eddie has solved cases on his own where forensics miss evidence. They confessed to confirm Eddie's alerts. Eddie was EVRD. If death has occurred in a missing person's case Eddie will find that odour. That's his job! He goes in first before Keela to find that odour and then bark alerts. Then it's Keela's turn to find any traces of blood in that alerted area.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 04, 2015, 11:24:25 AM
It proves that Eddie has solved cases on his own where forensics miss evidence. They confessed to confirm Eddie's alerts. Eddie was EVRD. If death has occurred in a missing person's case Eddie will find that odour. That's his job! He goes in first before Keela to find that odour and then bark alerts. Then it's Keela's turn to find any traces of blood in that alerted area.
I do not deny that Eddie has been successful.
What is unknown is how accurate he and Keela were in this case. Their serial accuracy is about 64%
You are slightly wrong in your description of the deployment of the dogs.
If both alert it says nothing more about the possibility of cadaver odour being present than was known originally.
If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn't, there is about a two thirds likelihood of this being suggestive of cadaver odour being present and a one in three possibility of it being a false positive.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Brietta on May 04, 2015, 11:24:51 AM
Actually no Brietta. The last time SY were on site in Praia da Luz they were looking for her remains. I don't call that much of a success.
None of us know what information the investigations have uncovered or what evidence the digs may have provided; I think SY were covering all the bases in their much publicised searches in the environs of PDL; at least if Madeleine McCann's remains had been found her family would have had some closure; in the absence of that discovery she is entitled to be presumed alive and worthy of the continuation of being looked for.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: mercury on May 05, 2015, 01:13:21 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.
Sorry, but you did not address the facts and frankly not sure what your post was meant to mean
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 07:48:19 AM
It means that scientifically and forensically, the dog alerts are not and can never be probative.
There is a massive failure to understand scientific and forensic method here.
Actually if you look at it the other way, in 2 separate alerts the probability of an incorrect alert (according to you) is 20% on each therefore the combined probability of an incorrect alert is 4%.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 08:09:43 AM
Actually if you look at it the other way, in 2 separate alerts the probability of an incorrect alert (according to you) is 20% on each therefore the combined probability of an incorrect alert is 4%.
Your maths is awry.
If you have two serial alerts on which the result depends on both, then an 80% error in either case results in a probability of 64% of error in the serial test.
Simple statistical theory.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 05, 2015, 08:24:02 AM
If you have two serial alerts on which the result depends on both, then an 80% error in either case results in a probability of 64% of error in the serial test.
Simple statistical theory.
It depends on whether you are looking at the combined probability of the alerts being correct or incorrect?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 08:41:48 AM
Irrelevant. They sent their best dogs. Why are they the best? I suggest you research the actual dogs involved in this case.
Aside from Grime's advertising their is no reason to believe they were the best dogs or anything out of the ordinary.
That is just a desire on your part, you have no evidence.
Until you produce clear and compelling scientifically justified EVIDENCE that they were superior to other dogs, we must continue to assume that they bad a similar competence to any other scent dog.
Over to you for a cite to support your belief.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 05, 2015, 11:54:09 AM
Aside from Grime's advertising their is no reason to believe they were the best dogs or anything out of the ordinary.
That is just a desire on your part, you have no evidence.
Until you produce clear and compelling scientifically justified EVIDENCE that they were superior to other dogs, we must continue to assume that they bad a similar competence to any other scent dog.
Over to you for a cite to support your belief.
The police who have worked on cases with these dogs. Go and ask them and SY why they are using the unreliable April Jones springer spaniels in PDL.
A reality check.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: sadie on May 05, 2015, 03:21:36 PM
The police who have worked on cases with these dogs. Go and ask them and SY why they are using the unreliable April Jones springer spaniels in PDL.
A reality check.
Impressive, agreed
But, I think, same as bodies, meat under water will bloat as it decomposes and bubbles will come up?
Am not sure about that but it seems to make sense to me.
Never-the-less impressive.
But what are you trying to prove, Pfinder? We now know that none of the alerts by Eddie and Keela PROVED anything. No forensic back up and also obvious errors.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 05, 2015, 03:33:11 PM
And you believe the transitive property always holds?
No.
But in statistical analysis of unrelated but serial events the probability is carried transitively from test to test, resulting in a reduction of probability over a series.
If dogs were 100% accurate (which we know they are not) then serial tests would remain 100% but for lesser certainties the fractions multiply and reduce the probability
90% means 80% with two tests
80 means 64
70 means 49. (no better than a coin flip)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 05, 2015, 10:48:12 PM
But in statistical analysis of unrelated but serial events the probability is carried transitively from test to test, resulting in a reduction of probability over a series.
If dogs were 100% accurate (which we know they are not) then serial tests would remain 100% but for lesser certainties the fractions multiply and reduce the probability
90% means 80% with two tests
80 means 64
70 means 49. (no better than a coin flip)
..and if they are 20% inaccurate the fractions multiply and twice means 4% probability of inaccuracy etc.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 07:52:51 AM
..and if they are 20% inaccurate the fractions multiply and twice means 4% probability of inaccuracy etc.
No.
If they were looking for the same thing then a second alert would increase the likelihood as you say; the accuracy would increase. But in the case of searching for cadaver it requires two separate alerts to two separate cases- Keela is failing to react to anything and Eddie is alerting potentially to cadaver. So in this case the probabilities multiply and reduce the accuracy.
Have you studied statistics or are you working on common sense. The one thing that you learn about statistics is that common sense often leads you astray in dealing with such calculations.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2015, 07:55:36 AM
If they were looking for the same thing then a second alert would increase the likelihood as you say; the accuracy would increase. But in the case of searching for cadaver it requires two separate alerts to two separate cases- Keela is failing to react to anything and Eddie is alerting potentially to cadaver. So in this case the probabilities multiply and reduce the accuracy.
Have you studied statistics or are you working on common sense. The one thing that you learn about statistics is that common sense often leads you astray in dealing with such calculations.
Yes, I have a degree in it which is why I am questioning you arbitrary selection of the probability you want to combine.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 08:11:56 AM
Yes, I have a degree in it which is why I am questioning you arbitrary selection of the probability you want to combine.
If you have a degree in statistics you should understand the argument above; anyone can claim anything on here and I do not accept your expertise. Try working it through from first principles.
Two blood dogs each with an average of 80% reliability.
Parallel Case
Dog one alerts giving one reason to believe that there is the possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
Dog two alerts giving one reason to believe that there is a possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
As you are repeating the same test, the second test increases the accuracy and two alerts increase the chance of the dogs being correct.
Serial Case
Dog one alerts giving one reason to believe that there is the possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
Dog two alerts giving one reason to believe that there is a possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
As the two rests are not connected the second test introduces inaccuracy and the accuracy is decreased.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 06, 2015, 08:24:41 AM
As has been observed, statistics are fine for an overview, but don't have any value in an individual case. I've smoked since i was 15 and have no health problems whatsoever.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2015, 08:28:07 AM
If you have a degree in statistics you should understand the argument above; anyone can claim anything on here and I do not accept your expertise. Try working it through from first principles.
Two blood dogs each with an average of 80% reliability.
Parallel Case
Dog one alerts giving one reason to believe that there is the possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
Dog two alerts giving one reason to believe that there is a possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
As you are repeating the same test, the second test increases the accuracy and two alerts increase the chance of the dogs being correct.
Serial Case
Dog one alerts giving one reason to believe that there is the possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
Dog two alerts giving one reason to believe that there is a possibility of 4 in 5 cases being correct.
As the two rests are not connected the second test introduces inaccuracy and the accuracy is decreased.
So if only we could wipe out one dog's response from the record, we would be left with a more accurate record? Shame on Grime for using two dogs and thus reducing the probability of clear evidence. Or perhaps he is to be praised for not using 3, that really would have been a mess!
Sorry, but I'm with Slarti on this one. It's the error rates that are important, not the success rates. And before you respond, yes, I've studied applied stats at uni level, though that was not my degree subject.
Slarti 1 Bloo 0.
And since we don't know the dogs success or error rates, it is all irrelevant!
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2015, 08:35:37 AM
So if only we could wipe out one dog's response from the record, we would be left with a more accurate record? Shame on Grime for using two dogs and thus reducing the probability of clear evidence. Or perhaps he is to be praised for not using 3, that really would have been a mess!
Sorry, but I'm with Slarti on this one. It's the error rates that are important, not the success rates. And before you respond, yes, I've studied applied stats at uni level, though that was not my degree subject.
Slarti 1 Bloo 0.
And since we don't know the dogs success or error rates, it is all irrelevant!
If Grime wanted the alerts taken seriously he would need to have the dogs independently tested and verified.He hasn't because what is important is not the alerts but the evidence the dogs find. the alerts themselves are of no significance
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 08:51:38 AM
So if only we could wipe out one dog's response from the record, we would be left with a more accurate record? Shame on Grime for using two dogs and thus reducing the probability of clear evidence. Or perhaps he is to be praised for not using 3, that really would have been a mess!
Sorry, but I'm with Slarti on this one. It's the error rates that are important, not the success rates. And before you respond, yes, I've studied applied stats at uni level, though that was not my degree subject.
Slarti 1 Bloo 0.
And since we don't know the dogs success or error rates, it is all irrelevant!
You misunderstand completely.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 10:17:59 AM
Yes, I have a degree in it which is why I am questioning you arbitrary selection of the probability you want to combine.
You have produced no reasoning but are merely denying from a position of claiming you simply know because you studied the subject-an argument from authority.
I have explained the reasoning in a way that any person understanding statistics should understand. I will now resort to Statistics 101 to explain why such parallel observations reduce the accuracy by the square or product of the first uncertainties.
Assume the is cadaver odour present and five tests are run with each dog. Eddie alerts four times but gives a false negative once. 80% correct. Keela does not alert four times but gives a false positive once. 80% correct.
Each second trial needs to be distributed over each original trial
Eddie T T T T F Keela T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N F N N N N N
Proportion of correct calls is 16 out of 25
Or 64%.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: VIXTE on May 06, 2015, 10:23:36 AM
You have produced no reasoning but are merely denying from a position of claiming you simply know because you studied the subject-an argument from authority.
I have explained the reasoning in a way that any person understanding statistics should understand. I will now resort to Statistics 101 to explain why such parallel observations reduce the accuracy by the square or product of the first uncertainties.
Assume the is cadaver odour present and five tests are run with each dog. Eddie alerts four times but gives a false negative once. 80% correct. Keela does not alert four times but gives a false positive once. 80% correct.
Each second trial needs to be distributed over each original trial
Eddie T T T T F Keela T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N F N N N N N
Proportion of correct calls is 16 out of 25
Or 64%.
Hmmm.. then if we analyse Portuguese GNR dogs, their percentage of showing 'alive' Madeleine leaving the apartment on foot was higher. And also more significant, because they were brought to the crime scene only hours later!
Or is it politically correct to only trust Keela and Eddie i.e the presentation of their alerts? And if yes then why?
That much about statistics hahaaha
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2015, 10:29:17 AM
Still playing set pieces I see.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 10:40:39 AM
Hmmm.. then if we analyse Portuguese GNR dogs, their percentage of showing 'alive' Madeleine leaving the apartment on foot was higher. And also more significant, because they were brought to the crime scene only hours later!
Or is it politically correct to only trust Keela and Eddie i.e the presentation of their alerts? And if yes then why?
That much about statistics hahaaha
That is nothing to do with the reasoning here which shows how the uncertainties multiply and reduce in such trials.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2015, 12:58:08 PM
You have produced no reasoning but are merely denying from a position of claiming you simply know because you studied the subject-an argument from authority.
I have explained the reasoning in a way that any person understanding statistics should understand. I will now resort to Statistics 101 to explain why such parallel observations reduce the accuracy by the square or product of the first uncertainties.
Assume the is cadaver odour present and five tests are run with each dog. Eddie alerts four times but gives a false negative once. 80% correct. Keela does not alert four times but gives a false positive once. 80% correct.
Each second trial needs to be distributed over each original trial
Eddie T T T T F Keela T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N F N N N N N
Proportion of correct calls is 16 out of 25
Or 64%.
Changing the goal posts I see. We were talking about cadaver dog accuracy. In your example there is only one case were both dogs are wrong I.e. 1/25 =4%.
In multiple tests for cadaver the more tests are made the less likely are the alerts to be incorrect.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 01:11:45 PM
Changing the goal posts I see. We were talking about cadaver dog accuracy. In your example there is only one case were both dogs are wrong I.e. 1/25 =4%.
In multiple tests for cadaver the more tests are made the less likely are the alerts to be incorrect.
The above is amended from a statistics text demonstrating why uncertainty in drug trials decreases rather than increases if the final outcome is determined by two separate tests which are unconnected and different in kind.
The matrix above demonstrates every possible outcome for two dogs, one cadaver/blood, one blood alone, reacting to the possible of presence of cadaver- exactly what we are arguing about. In twenty five possible results, sixteen are correct and nine are wrong, meaning that sixteen out of twenty five are right which is 64%.
Please supply your reasoning in a similar way to demonstrate that the certainty increases rather than decreases.
If you cannot we shall just have to assume you have forgotten the statistical ability you claim to have had once.
No simple denial please- rational argument with mathematical rigidity.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 01:18:21 PM
In multiple tests for cadaver the more tests are made the less likely are the alerts to be incorrect.
A hint to help. Your last statement is why you are getting it wrong. Multiple tests by cadaver dogs tell you nothing about the presence of cadaver as they result in a finding of 'blood or cadaver'. The initial result needs to be decided by a negative given by a blood dog.
I will agree that if you introduced a second team and doubled the alerts and both pairs agreed, THAT would increase the probability of accuracy, but in the case in point, the requirement for two separate tests introduces extra uncertainty by the product of the original uncertainties.
Think about it rather than just knee jerking and if you still disagree, produce similar reasoning for what you claim. Simple contradiction from a claim to authority just does not pass muster.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 06, 2015, 01:24:39 PM
A hint to help. Your last statement is why you are getting it wrong. Multiple tests by cadaver dogs tell you nothing about the presence of cadaver as they result in a finding of 'blood or cadaver'. The initial result needs to be decided by a negative given by a blood dog.
I will agree that if you introduced a second team and doubled the alerts and both pairs agreed, THAT would increase the probability of accuracy, but in the case in point, the requirement for two separate tests introduces extra uncertainty by the product of the original uncertainties.
Think about it rather than just knee jerking and if you still disagree, produce similar reasoning for what you claim. Simple contradiction from a claim to authority just does not pass muster.
So what is the objective of this set piece?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 01:43:53 PM
OK let us ignore dogs.
Take a bag of pebbles that has eighty per cent red spheres and twenty per cent blue spheres. Picker one draws five balls on average they will draw four them in the ratio 4:1 and can predict that the bag contains balls in a ratio of four to one with an uncertainty of p If picker two repeats the same exercise then the uncertainty would fall to p + x – it is more likely to be right.
Now consider a bag containing balls which has eighty per cent hollow spheres and twenty per cent solid spheres. Picker one draws five balls on average they will draw them in the ratio of 4:1 and can predict that the bag contains balls in a ratio of four to one with an uncertainty of p If picker two repeats the same exercise then the uncertainty would fall to p + x – it is more likely to be right.
Now consider a bag which includes spheres each of which is either red or blue and independently each is hollow or solid. Balls are withdrawn by a neutral party. Picker one only sees the balls and determines their ratio of red to blue balls. Picker two who is blind only weighs the balls and determines whether the balls are solid or hollow.
Now their probability decreases according to the same matrix
T T T T F T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N F N N N N N
Proportion of correct calls is 16 out of 25
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Lyall on May 06, 2015, 01:52:39 PM
If Grime wanted the alerts taken seriously he would need to have the dogs independently tested and verified.He hasn't because what is important is not the alerts but the evidence the dogs find. the alerts themselves are of no significance
You're right, on their own they aren't. But when combined with the evidence of the training of the dog they are.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 06, 2015, 02:33:21 PM
I must have missed that announcement by Grange. Could you provide a cite for it.
Of course they may not have been searching for Madeleine, but seeking to exclude possibilities and thus increase the likelihood that she was not dead and buried in PdL.
What? You missed all the media reporting on where, when and why they were digging up parts of Praia da Luz? Do you honestly believe they weren't looking for remains?
(http://i.imgur.com/zcOseQl.jpg?1)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 06, 2015, 02:35:44 PM
The problem with digging holes is that finding nothing proves nothing - you may just be digging in the wrong place.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 02:36:01 PM
What? You missed all the media reporting on where, when and why they were digging up parts of Praia da Luz? Do you honestly believe they weren't looking for remains?
I don't deny they were looking for remains. What I do deny is any certainty that they might ONLY be searching for remains which was the import of the statement I was countering.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 06, 2015, 02:49:25 PM
I don't deny they were looking for remains. What I do deny is any certainty that they might ONLY be searching for remains which was the import of the statement I was countering.
Well naturally anything else which could link back to Madeleine would have been a bonus but I have no doubt they were hoping for a breakthrough with the discovery of remains. This was Redwood's last throw of the dice, his final hand.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 06, 2015, 02:56:11 PM
Well naturally anything else which could link back to Madeleine would have been a bonus but I have no doubt they were hoping for a breakthrough with the discovery of remains. This was Redwood's last throw of the dice, his final hand.
There is a high level of assumption on this board.
We have no idea how the investigations are doing or what is their subject.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 06, 2015, 02:57:22 PM
Well naturally anything else which could link back to Madeleine would have been a bonus but I have no doubt they were hoping for a breakthrough with the discovery of remains. This was Redwood's last throw of the dice, his final hand.
None of us know what exactly was of interest in those searches. It could have been related to potential indications concerning direct or indirect evidence.
For all anyone knows there could have been some delusional glory-seeker whose assertions had to be ruled out.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 06, 2015, 03:25:42 PM
SY have certainly been deadly silent, officially at least, for the last 6 months.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Angelo222 on May 06, 2015, 03:33:13 PM
Thinking of your "smiley" at the prosepct of the the investigation stopping.
The investigation was dead the moment the parents began to criticise it with Philomena McCann uttering public criticisms as early as 5 May 2007.
Back on topic. Cadaver dogs are a wonderful tool in the investigative process but can never be relied upon and that is why Mr Grime always insisted that without additional forensic evidence they were ultimately deemed unreliable.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 05:06:24 PM
I note you have failed to address the mathematical reasoning on the square of probabilities and are merely being abusive.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Jean-Pierre on May 06, 2015, 05:19:25 PM
In considering statistics, it may be worth remembering the Sally Clark case. The "eminent" expert witness Professor Roy Meadow got his stats "confused" and cost a bereaved mother her liberty and ultimately her life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 05:23:48 PM
In considering statistics, it may be worth remembering the Sally Clark case. The "eminent" expert witness Professor Roy Meadow got his stats "confused" and cost a bereaved mother her liberty and ultimately her life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Clark
This misconception is even worse. For decades medical researchers used the 'simple' assumption that any repeat measurements increased the validity, only to be informed by more advanced statisticians that decisions dependent on two sequential measurements such as I have described actually reduces the validity.
It should be noted that no one has tried to counter the logic, just claims to authority.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 06, 2015, 06:57:23 PM
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.
"A small amount of forensic evidence," for example, "may be under a board in a house, or under a large boulder, and things like that, where forensic evidence can't normally be recovered from. We'll use the dogs to try and locate it for us," Grime said.
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.
Eddie is a veteran of more than 200 homicide cases, working with Grime, who has 30 years' of law enforcement and military experience in conducting criminal investigations.
14 September 2007 Chattanooga Times/Free Press Chloe Morrison
The investigation into the disappearance of Walker County 911 dispatcher Theresa Parker is a "high-priority" case, FBI agents said Thursday, and authorities unveiled tools to be used in the search.
Martin Grime, a 30-year veteran of military and civil police work in the United Kingdom and developer of a K-9 forensic program, has been asked to help in the investigation, along with his dog, Eddie. They are assisting the FBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigation and Walker County Sheriff's Department in narrowing leads.
"Hopefully we will find Theresa Parker," Mr. Grime said. "Hopefully we will find evidence. Hopefully all the information we claim will give us a line of inquiry and it just saves conducting 50 lines of inquiry."
Mrs. Parker has been missing since March 21. Her estranged husband, former LaFayette, Ga., police Officer Sam Parker, has been called a "person of interest" by the FBI.
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."
Mr. Grime said he and Eddie will help formulate a strategy and find evidence, but officials would not comment on when or where new searches will be conducted.
"He is a trained victim recovery dog," Mr. Grime said. "He is a wide-area screening asset that will locate human remains either in the whole or part or down to the cellular level."
Parker, a former sergeant with the LaFayette Police Department, is being held without bond accused of murdering his wife Teresa. She seemingly vanished more than two years ago leaving behind a family and career with Walker County 911. There is no evidence she has died, a body was never found and investigators have not found a murder weapon.
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.
September 23, 2010 LAFAYETTE, Ga. (CBS/AP) Teresa 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, investigators said Wednesday - a sad and final ending that they have feared since Teresa mysteriously vanished in 2007.
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.
"A small amount of forensic evidence," for example, "may be under a board in a house, or under a large boulder, and things like that, where forensic evidence can't normally be recovered from. We'll use the dogs to try and locate it for us," Grime said.
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.
Eddie is a veteran of more than 200 homicide cases, working with Grime, who has 30 years' of law enforcement and military experience in conducting criminal investigations.
14 September 2007 Chattanooga Times/Free Press Chloe Morrison
The investigation into the disappearance of Walker County 911 dispatcher Theresa Parker is a "high-priority" case, FBI agents said Thursday, and authorities unveiled tools to be used in the search.
Martin Grime, a 30-year veteran of military and civil police work in the United Kingdom and developer of a K-9 forensic program, has been asked to help in the investigation, along with his dog, Eddie. They are assisting the FBI, Georgia Bureau of Investigation and Walker County Sheriff's Department in narrowing leads.
"Hopefully we will find Theresa Parker," Mr. Grime said. "Hopefully we will find evidence. Hopefully all the information we claim will give us a line of inquiry and it just saves conducting 50 lines of inquiry."
Mrs. Parker has been missing since March 21. Her estranged husband, former LaFayette, Ga., police Officer Sam Parker, has been called a "person of interest" by the FBI.
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."
Mr. Grime said he and Eddie will help formulate a strategy and find evidence, but officials would not comment on when or where new searches will be conducted.
"He is a trained victim recovery dog," Mr. Grime said. "He is a wide-area screening asset that will locate human remains either in the whole or part or down to the cellular level."
Parker, a former sergeant with the LaFayette Police Department, is being held without bond accused of murdering his wife Teresa. She seemingly vanished more than two years ago leaving behind a family and career with Walker County 911. There is no evidence she has died, a body was never found and investigators have not found a murder weapon.
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.
September 23, 2010 LAFAYETTE, Ga. (CBS/AP) Teresa 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, investigators said Wednesday - a sad and final ending that they have feared since Teresa mysteriously vanished in 2007.
You seem to have overlooked the bit which confirms that Martin Grime had not at that time acted as an expert witness in the US.
**snip
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.
You seem to have overlooked the bit which confirms that Martin Grime had not at that time acted as an expert witness in the US.
**snip
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.
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: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2015, 10:45:23 PM
It means that scientifically and forensically, the dog alerts are not and can never be probative.
There is a massive failure to understand scientific and forensic method here.
So? They remain as circumstial evidence. There is no such thing as a cadaver dog alerting correctly to remnant cadaver scent from a decomposing body which is probative. Not yet, anyway. Except in police training or scientific studies.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2015, 11:20:16 PM
Take a bag of pebbles that has eighty per cent red spheres and twenty per cent blue spheres. Picker one draws five balls on average they will draw four them in the ratio 4:1 and can predict that the bag contains balls in a ratio of four to one with an uncertainty of p If picker two repeats the same exercise then the uncertainty would fall to p + x – it is more likely to be right.
Now consider a bag containing balls which has eighty per cent hollow spheres and twenty per cent solid spheres. Picker one draws five balls on average they will draw them in the ratio of 4:1 and can predict that the bag contains balls in a ratio of four to one with an uncertainty of p If picker two repeats the same exercise then the uncertainty would fall to p + x – it is more likely to be right.
Now consider a bag which includes spheres each of which is either red or blue and independently each is hollow or solid. Balls are withdrawn by a neutral party. Picker one only sees the balls and determines their ratio of red to blue balls. Picker two who is blind only weighs the balls and determines whether the balls are solid or hollow.
Now their probability decreases according to the same matrix
T T T T F T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N T P P P P N F N N N N N
Proportion of correct calls is 16 out of 25
This doesn't actually mean anything, it's just pseudo claptrap.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 06, 2015, 11:42:59 PM
Well its copied from a textbook. If you don't recognise a distribution matrix you are no statistician, merely a shady politician using words to avoid sensible argument.
Maybe you forgot to include the explanations that went with it. Good at cut and paste aren't you.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 06, 2015, 11:49:44 PM
Maybe you forgot to include the explanations that went with it. Good at cut and paste aren't you.
It is not cut and paste. It is adapted from the text book I used some fifty years ago and is amended to make it easier to understand for those who do not understand statistics. The matrix gives every possible outcome for a test of two variables with a probability of 80%.
I note you do not address the mathematics, but resort to individual attack.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 02:09:56 AM
maybe things have moved on in fifty years and once youre seventy odd your marbles cant be trusted theyre encrusted lol even though you still feel the need to pontificate your time is ovef use whats left of it well mate
Actually the idea fell out of favour for some reason - probably because little in the real world relies on such parallel tests. But it was resurrected some thirty years ago to show how Big Parma was using and misusing statistics to bolster their claims to efficacy. When the parallel trial analysis was applied it showed that many drugs were not as efficacious as had been thought.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: mercury on May 07, 2015, 02:44:36 AM
We all know big pharma lie for profits and are morally defunct I know I worked for them for 8 years
Dogs and their handlers who are looking for dead people or signs of them are not the same goodnight
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 02:51:30 AM
What? You missed all the media reporting on where, when and why they were digging up parts of Praia da Luz? Do you honestly believe they weren't looking for remains?
(http://i.imgur.com/zcOseQl.jpg?1)
Just as well they didn't follow the Sun story then. Four sites, all wrong. Mechanical diggers? What hilarity.
Mind you, it sold newspapers.
And I'm still with Slartibartfast on probability theory.
Whilst the fact that the dogs were not used in such a manner renders the debate academic.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 02:45:11 PM
If you dispute the mathematics of the sttisticalmdistribution, I am happy to defend it.
Simple denial without proof of error is just personal belief.
Would you like to tell us precisely what your mathematics has proved. In simple terms please as I get confused. I once read a whole book on maths absolutely convinced it was The Operator j what dunnit only to find out on the last page it were Curly Dee. So you see my dilemma.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 07, 2015, 04:58:43 PM
Would you like to tell us precisely what your mathematics has proved. In simple terms please as I get confused. I once read a whole book on maths absolutely convinced it was The Operator j what dunnit only to find out on the last page it were Curly Dee. So you see my dilemma.
probably best just to accept it's all over your head then
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 05:25:13 PM
Would you like to tell us precisely what your mathematics has proved. In simple terms please as I get confused. I once read a whole book on maths absolutely convinced it was The Operator j what dunnit only to find out on the last page it were Curly Dee. So you see my dilemma.
If you have two parallel but separate decisions to make, the probabilities of each test need to be multiplied together, reducing the accuracy of the two parallel tests.
If you have a series of tests, the second test improves the accuracy of the two tests.
So, if you have two blood dogs and bother alert in sequence, the probability of them being wrong is reduced from 4 in 5 to 4 in a hundred.
Consider the matrix for this case
Dog one on average is wrong once in five alerts as is dog two. We need to examine all possible permutations of correct and incorrect alerts.
Each dog alerts R R R R W
Showing this as a matrix we have
DOG TWO DOG ONE. W R R R R W R R R R R W R R R R R W R R R R R W R R R R R W
There is only one place in the matrix where both are wrong so the probability is 96% correct increased from 80%
Now consider two different tests- see the previous descriptions for either Eddie and Keela, or the choice of spheres either red or blue and hollow or solid
The matrix now is
R R R R W R R R R W R R R R W R R R R W W W W W W
giving an accuracy of 16 out of 25 or 64%
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 07, 2015, 07:01:09 PM
My point is simply that two dog alerts make the probability less than single alerts.
You say dog alerts are false 4 out of 5 times. I simply asked on what you based that statement. If you can't give the source upon which you are basing your assertion then your assertion can't be verified and your point is null and void.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 11:30:30 PM
You say dog alerts are false 4 out of 5 times. I simply asked on what you based that statement. If you can't give the source upon which you are basing your assertion then your assertion can't be verified and your point is null and void.
I said IF they are correct 4 out of 5 times. All probabilities are less than one, so when multiplied as in be example the probability drops. This is my point.
I have wasted two much time quoting from the research only to have people nitpick. If people want to suggest that dogs are 100% perfect, then all they need to do is produce blinded peer reviewed academic papers proving that; in eight years I have never seen one.
But despite that the Maths holds.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 07, 2015, 11:42:30 PM
I said IF they are correct 4 out of 5 times. All probabilities are less than one, so when multiplied as in be example the probability drops. This is my point.
I have wasted two much time quoting from the research only to have people nitpick. If people want to suggest that dogs are 100% perfect, then all they need to do is produce blinded peer reviewed academic papers proving that; in eight years I have never seen one.
But despite that the Maths holds.
Sorry, you're quite correct, you said they're right 4 out of 5 times. I just want to know where you got that figure?It's not nitpicking to ask someone to provide backup for their assertions is it?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 07, 2015, 11:54:50 PM
Sorry, you're quite correct, you said they're right 4 out of 5 times. I just want to know where you got that figure?It's not nitpicking to ask someone to provide backup for their assertions is it?
Do you not understand conditional. IF!
My point is not that the dogs are 80% accurate, but IF they are, their accuracy is reduced by the requirement for two parallel alerts.
Most papers suggest accuracies between 60% and 90%.
Whatever the actual accuracies, they are reduced by the product of their individual uncertainties
90% becomes 81% 80% 64% 70% 49% 60% 36%
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 08, 2015, 12:07:27 AM
My point is not that the dogs are 80% accurate, but IF they are, their accuracy is reduced by the requirement for two parallel alerts.
Most papers suggest accuracies between 60% and 90%.
Whatever the actual accuracies, they are reduced by the product of their individual uncertainties
90% becomes 81% 80% 64% 70% 49% 60% 36%
I understand squaring numbers I did that for 11+. and I understand basic probability all though it is unclear why you consider the parallel events have a dependent relationship. You say however "most papers suggest" but you are unable or unwilling to show where or what those papers are. Saying Google is your friend don't cut it. You could be kind enough to tell us which papers your opinion is reliant on. It is a simple enough request.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 12:11:14 AM
My point is not that the dogs are 80% accurate, but IF they are, their accuracy is reduced by the requirement for two parallel alerts.
Most papers suggest accuracies between 60% and 90%.
Whatever the actual accuracies, they are reduced by the product of their individual uncertainties
90% becomes 81% 80% 64% 70% 49% 60% 36%
So your original figures upon which you are basing your calculations are figures you have decided are probably about right? It's all based on an assumption? Change the assumption and you change the results.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 12:35:44 AM
So your original figures upon which you are basing your calculations are figures you have decided are probably about right? It's all based on an assumption? Change the assumption and you change the results.
No. My contention simply is that a joint Eddie Keela alert has a higher uncertainty than a single alert whatever the actual vale of certainty for a single alert.
80% is a fair average of the published papers, but that is not my point.
The point is that the uncertainty increases because of the parallel nature of the test.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 12:38:32 AM
I understand squaring numbers I did that for 11+. and I understand basic probability all though it is unclear why you consider the parallel events have a dependent relationship. You say however "most papers suggest" but you are unable or unwilling to show where or what those papers are. Saying Google is your friend don't cut it. You could be kind enough to tell us which papers your opinion is reliant on. It is a simple enough request.
Anyone suggesting that the dogs are perfect needs to produce a blinded peer reviewed paper.
There is no such paper.
As all papers show an uncertainty of between 60% and 90% , no matter what the absolute value is, it increases with the parallel status of the trial.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2015, 07:44:36 AM
My take for your information.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 07:54:20 AM
No. My contention simply is that a joint Eddie Keela alert has a higher uncertainty than a single alert whatever the actual vale of certainty for a single alert.
80% is a fair average of the published papers, but that is not my point.
The point is that the uncertainty increases because of the parallel nature of the test.
In this case Keela's score was 100% correct.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 08, 2015, 09:49:47 AM
Anyone suggesting that the dogs are perfect needs to produce a blinded peer reviewed paper.
There is no such paper.
As all papers show an uncertainty of between 60% and 90% , no matter what the absolute value is, it increases with the parallel status of the trial.
I did not say that. Several posts ago you maintained you had read all there was worth reading about cadaver dogs and indeed had communicated with one of the worlds leading experts. It should not be too difficult to find a reference in all that lot and tell us should it?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 10:00:06 AM
No. My contention simply is that a joint Eddie Keela alert has a higher uncertainty than a single alert whatever the actual vale of certainty for a single alert.
80% is a fair average of the published papers, but that is not my point.
The point is that the uncertainty increases because of the parallel nature of the test.
That is the assumption which requires verification, because that's the assumption upon which your conclusions rely.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 10:17:38 AM
That is the assumption which requires verification, because that's the assumption upon which your conclusions rely.
No. I am not assuming that dogs are 80% accurate. Dogs are either 100%accurate or they are less than 100% accurate.
No evidence exists for them being 100% accurate. Blinded peer reviewed pets suggest 60% to 90% accurate.
My contention is not that we can prove that dogs are x per cent accurate, but that two dog trials for blood and or Cadaver alert reduces whatever the accuracy is by the mutpilicand of the two uncertainties, thus reducing the reliability.
So we ca say that IF the single probability is 'x' then the twin probability is x squared, and as x is always less than one, the double alert is less reliable than any single alert at that probability.
I am not claiming that dogs are 80% reliable. I am saying IF the probability of each single alert is 80%, then the probability of the double alert is 64%. If it is 95% it is 90% if it is 70% it is 50% and so on.
It just so happens that 80% is a fair average from all blinded peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 10:26:31 AM
No. I am not assuming that dogs are 80% accurate. Dogs are either 100%accurate or they are less than 100% accurate.
No evidence exists for them being 100% accurate. Blinded peer reviewed pets suggest 60% to 90% accurate.
My contention is not that we can prove that dogs are x per cent accurate, but that two dog trials for blood and or Cadaver alert reduces whatever the accuracy is by the mutpilicand of the two uncertainties, thus reducing the reliability.
So we ca say that IF the single probability is 'x' then the twin probability is x squared, and as x is always less than one, the double alert is less reliable than any single alert at that probability.
I am not claiming that dogs are 80% reliable. I am saying IF the probability of each single alert is 80%, then the probability of the double alert is 64%. If it is 95% it is 90% if it is 70% it is 50% and so on.
It just so happens that 80% is a fair average from all blinded peer reviewed papers on the subject.
Unfortunately, for it to have any meaning in this case you would have to demonstrate that Eddie and Keela in particular were not 100% accurate. Dogs in general may have been shown to be inaccurate in tests, but even that doesn't translate to being inaccurate 'in the field' because testing handlers and dogs has it's own problems.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 10:39:10 AM
Unfortunately, for it to have any meaning in this case you would have to demonstrate that Eddie and Keela in particular were not 100% accurate. Dogs in general may have been shown to be inaccurate in tests, but even that doesn't translate to being inaccurate 'in the field' because testing handlers and dogs has it's own problems.
If you think dogs are generally accurate, produce the evidence. All measurements whether doggie or not have an uncertainty.
I am not even talking about dogs.
I am talking about any parallel trial (see the solid hollow red blue spheres exile above). All parallel measurements result in reduction of accuracy. That is all I am saying.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 10:59:37 AM
If you think dogs are generally accurate, produce the evidence. All measurements whether doggie or not have an uncertainty.
I am not even talking about dogs.
I am talking about any parallel trial (see the solid hollow red blue spheres exile above). All parallel measurements result in reduction of accuracy. That is all I am saying.
I have asked you to produce your evidence for the general inaccuracy of the dogs and you haven't. It's your thesis not mine, so the onus to produce evidence to support it is on you.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 11:12:06 AM
I have asked you to produce your evidence for the general inaccuracy of the dogs and you haven't. It's your thesis not mine, so the onus to produce evidence to support it is on you.
My contention does not depend on any particular inaccuracy. It applies for any value from 99% to .1%.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 08, 2015, 11:52:17 AM
No. I am not assuming that dogs are 80% accurate. Dogs are either 100%accurate or they are less than 100% accurate.
No evidence exists for them being 100% accurate. Blinded peer reviewed pets suggest 60% to 90% accurate.
My contention is not that we can prove that dogs are x per cent accurate, but that two dog trials for blood and or Cadaver alert reduces whatever the accuracy is by the mutpilicand of the two uncertainties, thus reducing the reliability.
So we ca say that IF the single probability is 'x' then the twin probability is x squared, and as x is always less than one, the double alert is less reliable than any single alert at that probability.
I am not claiming that dogs are 80% reliable. I am saying IF the probability of each single alert is 80%, then the probability of the double alert is 64%. If it is 95% it is 90% if it is 70% it is 50% and so on.
It just so happens that 80% is a fair average from all blinded peer reviewed papers on the subject.
So no comment on my figures then?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 01:44:04 PM
I don't understand how you came up with those percentages. Could you walk me through one or two examples so that I can get the idea?
One point that I believe skews the discussion is the assumption that "cadaver" scent necessarily means a deceased human (or pig).
Something I'm still not sure about is whether "human decomposition" scent is a euphemism or whether it is a more accurate term depending on the dog's training. I suspect the latter as we already know that Eddie reacted to dried blood from a living human being.
If a different dog had been solely trained on post-mortem human remains and had never reacted to decomposing material from a living human, then I'd find that issue clearer.
In other words, whatever the argument about percentages of accuracy, if a dog reacts to fruit, in the absence of corroborative information, you still don't know whether he's correctly alerted to an orange or a pear.
My conclusion being that Keela only reacts to bananas (and she may or may not always be accurate). Eddie reacted to fruit and if he reacted, Keela was wheeled in to see if she could detect a banana. Where Keela does not identify a banana, and Eddie reacts to fruit, how does anyone know which type in the absence of identifiable fruit pips or kernels?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 02:31:45 PM
I don't understand how you came up with those percentages. Could you walk me through one or two examples so that I can get the idea?
One point that I believe skews the discussion is the assumption that "cadaver" scent necessarily means a deceased human (or pig).
Something I'm still not sure about is whether "human decomposition" scent is a euphemism or whether it is a more accurate term depending on the dog's training. I suspect the latter as we already know that Eddie reacted to dried blood from a living human being.
If a different dog had been solely trained on post-mortem human remains and had never reacted to decomposing material from a living human, then I'd find that issue clearer.
In other words, whatever the argument about percentages of accuracy, if a dog reacts to fruit, in the absence of corroborative information, you still don't know whether he's correctly alerted to an orange or a pear.
My conclusion being that Keela only reacts to bananas (and she may or may not always be accurate). Eddie reacted to fruit and if he reacted, Keela was wheeled in to see if she could detect a banana. Where Keela does not identify a banana, and Eddie reacts to fruit, how does anyone know which type in the absence of identifiable fruit pips or kernels?
Eddie alerted to cadaver scent and blood. If he alerted Keela was used. If she alerted, it was assumed that there was blood present. if she didn't the alert was assumed to be cadaver scent.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 02:34:03 PM
Eddie alerted to cadaver scent and blood. If he alerted Keela was used. If she alerted, it was assumed that there was blood present. if she didn't the alert was assumed to be cadaver scent.
there's a lot of assuming going on..
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 08, 2015, 04:03:18 PM
Eddie alerted to cadaver scent and blood. If he alerted Keela was used. If she alerted, it was assumed that there was blood present. if she didn't the alert was assumed to be cadaver scent.
Assumed being the operative word.
Nowhere have I seen Grime state in the files whether Eddie would react to the scent of dried blood in the absence of a physical source or not.
I haven't seen anything to indicate whether Grime wrote up his notes on Eddie's alert to sex tissues in Jersey at the time of the alert or whether he waited for Keela's reaction before deciding that Eddie must have reacted to a speck of blood.
I appreciate people who understand statistics far better than I will ever do trying to work out accuracy percentages, but my query is somewhat more basic...
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2015, 04:31:01 PM
I don't understand how you came up with those percentages. Could you walk me through one or two examples so that I can get the idea?
One point that I believe skews the discussion is the assumption that "cadaver" scent necessarily means a deceased human (or pig).
Something I'm still not sure about is whether "human decomposition" scent is a euphemism or whether it is a more accurate term depending on the dog's training. I suspect the latter as we already know that Eddie reacted to dried blood from a living human being.
If a different dog had been solely trained on post-mortem human remains and had never reacted to decomposing material from a living human, then I'd find that issue clearer.
In other words, whatever the argument about percentages of accuracy, if a dog reacts to fruit, in the absence of corroborative information, you still don't know whether he's correctly alerted to an orange or a pear.
My conclusion being that Keela only reacts to bananas (and she may or may not always be accurate). Eddie reacted to fruit and if he reacted, Keela was wheeled in to see if she could detect a banana. Where Keela does not identify a banana, and Eddie reacts to fruit, how does anyone know which type in the absence of identifiable fruit pips or kernels?
It was OBs percentages (using a top of his range percentage for Blood Dog as I would say it is very mainstream).
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 08, 2015, 05:40:09 PM
It was OBs percentages (using a top of his range percentage for Blood Dog as I would say it is very mainstream).
That's ok... you could be arguing about the finer points of astrophysics when my concern would be whether I was likely to be hit by a meteor in the near future or not.
Back to my point though, unless anyone has further information, the outcome of the statistics is assumed to relate to a defined conclusion (i.e. a dead body).
And I simply can't find anything relating to that dog to make me assume that - if his alert was correct - that he correctly alerted to a "cadaver".
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2015, 05:42:41 PM
That's ok... you could be arguing about the finer points of astrophysics when my concern would be whether I was likely to be hit by a meteor in the near future or not.
Back to my point though, unless anyone has further information, the outcome of the statistics is assumed to relate to a defined conclusion (i.e. a dead body).
And I simply can't find anything relating to that dog to make me assume that - if his alert was correct - that he correctly alerted to a "cadaver".
It is the most likely source of the scent.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 08, 2015, 05:44:21 PM
The dogs alert to the scent produced by a decaying body (or decaying pig).
- Has the potential residual scent of a bloodied plaster been eliminated? - Have residual scents of irrelevant activities likely to occur in the master bedroom of a holiday flat been excluded? - Have all the occupants post-disappearance been interviewed? - Have the furnishings been excluded as a source of potential contaminant?
Isn't it somewhat simplistic to assume that even a correct alert by Eddie = dead body?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2015, 06:19:55 PM
Keela alerts to blood not cadaver Eddie alerts to blood and or cadaver.
Both can give false positive nd false negative alerts.
Then you can name one missing case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the person has turned up alive. That should be easy peasy for a self-proclaimed dog expert like you.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 06:26:46 PM
Then you can name one missing case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the person has turned up alive. That should be easy peasy for a self-proclaimed dog expert like you.
As there is very little information on the identities of the victims of unknown fate in cases on which he did work (protected according to an FOI response), that might be somewhat difficult to verify.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 06:29:28 PM
Then you can name one missing case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the person has turned up alive. That should be easy peasy for a self-proclaimed dog expert like you.
that's a very silly question...so if we take PDL whose cadaver scent was eddies supposedly alerting to...
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 06:30:42 PM
Then you can name one missing case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the person has turned up alive. That should be easy peasy for a self-proclaimed dog expert like you.
First, an alert by Eddie does not indicate a cadaver has been there. He also alerts to dead pigs and any human or pig blood. They also alert to transferred scent on objects that have previously been in the presence of or in contact with a cadaver.
If a blood dog fails to alert to the same place where he did, that suggests the possibility of the presence of a cadaver, but only a finite possibility.
That is not anyway an exclusive test.
There are however many cases where Eddie has alerted and no proof of death has been produced and there may be many cases where he has failed to react while the target odour was present. Research suggests that all scent dogs have false positives and false negatives.
And in answer to your question, the cadaver dog (I can't remember if it was Eddie) reacted in the case of the missing girl that later turned up alive hidden in the box under a bed. This was blamed on second hand furniture that had been bought from a house where someone had died.
So there is your example.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 06:41:37 PM
First, an alert by Eddie does not indicate a cadaver has been there. He also alerts to dead pigs and any human or pig blood. They also alert to transferred scent on objects that have previously been in the presence of or in contact with a cadaver.
If a blood dog fails to alert to the same place where he did, that suggests the possibility of the presence of a cadaver, but only a finite possibility.
That is not anyway an exclusive test.
There are however many cases where Eddie has alerted and no proof of death has been produced and there may be many cases where he has failed to react while the target odour was present. Research suggests that all scent dogs have false positives and false negatives.
And in answer to your question, the cadaver dog (I can't remember if it was Eddie) reacted in the case of the missing girl that later turned up alive hidden in the box under a bed. This was blamed on second hand furniture that had been bought from a house where someone had died.
So there is your example.
I await your links showing Eddie's false alerts.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 06:43:39 PM
If Maddie is still alive...which is a possibility according to SY and amaral's solicitor...then what was eddie alerting to ... can anyone answer that question
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 06:44:49 PM
Grime states clearly that Eddie reacts to dead pig and blood from a living person.
Neither does Martin Grime say that Eddie is fallible. If you assert that he is then it's your place to provide a basis for your assertion.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them. EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 07:20:59 PM
Neither does Martin Grime say that Eddie is fallible. If you assert that he is then it's your place to provide a basis for your assertion.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them. EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
He repeatedly says they may be fallible. His testimony is full of caveats.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 07:22:17 PM
If I can quote a case where Eddie reacted and the person later turned up, will you admit that cadaver dogs are fallible?
If you can find a case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent where there hasn't been a death involved then I will definitely admit Eddie is. These dogs were chosen by the FBI because they don't get things wrong. They were regularly tested and trained every day to do their job so good luck.
In 2001 the dogs helped recover the body of Shane Collier in the Yorkshire Dales, enabling Barnsley officers to gain a murder conviction, while at the end of last year the FBI sought their help in a ten-year-old murder inquiry in the United States.
Border collie Frankie and springer spaniel Eddie work with PCs John Ellis and Martin Grime as part of the Victim Search team.
The two dogs, who cost £1,000 a day to hire from the South Yorkshire police force, were used earlier this year in the hunt for missing north Devon teenager Charlotte Pinkney and Bradford-born student Shafilea Ahmed, 17, who went missing from her home in Warrington last September. Also Alicia Eborne. Police dogs trained in sniffing out human remains were today searching the site of a new housing development in the hunt for missing mum Julie Crocker.
Their expert services were also called on by the FBI, but the two dogs were too busy to respond.
Detective dogs who sniff at less than £1,000 a day 28 April 2004 Daily Mail Chris Brooke
They may only be police dogs but Eddie and Frankie are on a higher pay scale than the Chief Constable and the Prime Minister. Such is the sniffing power of these canine detectives that their force charges £1,000 when they are hired out for a single day's work. Even at that price, they are in great demand across Britain and even from Europe and the U.S.
Not only can they find a body, no matter how well it may be hidden, but they have the ability to sniff out microscopic traces of blood or human remains. They have gone under floorboards, in rivers, caves, lofts and woodland in search of bodies. Even human remains that have been buried for years will not evade them.
Eddie, a three-year-old springer spaniel and formerly an unwanted pet, teamed up with Frankie, a four-year-old border collie and former stray, when South Yorkshire Police were looking for two dogs to train for the specialist work. Now available to any force willing to pay the £1,000-a-day going rate, Eddie and Frankie are regarded as the country's premier police sniffer dogs.
Over the last year they have worked for 17 forces across the UK.
Their biggest job lasted ten days and made £10,000. They have been hired out on average twice a week - making a total of around £100,000. The revenue raised is put back into funding the force.
Handlers PC Martin Grimes[SIC s/b 'Grime'], 47, and PC John Ellis, 50, began by training the dogs in standard police techniques. They went on to develop a specialist training programme to hone the dogs' extraordinary abilities.
Eddie and Frankie have been called in to help in some of the most difficult murder cases. They were recently flown to Northern Ireland where they found the body of missing pensioner Attracta Harron, 65, buried under 18 inches of clay in a riverbank at County Tyrone.
The victim's relatives were so grateful they asked to meet the dogs.
PC Grimes said: 'It appeared to be a comfort to them. If it hadn't have been for the dogs we wouldn't have found her.'
A man has since appeared in court charged with the murder. [Trevor Hamilton, later convicted]
The dogs played a major role in locating the body of Barnsley murder victim Shane Collier, 21, who had been cut up and buried five months earlier in remote woodland.
They have been recruited to find the body of 17-year-old Charlotte Pinkney, who was killed after a party in Ilfracombe, Devon, and have been called in to help police in Northern Ireland try to solve a backlog of 150 murders stretching back 25 years.
PC Ellis, a dog handler for 25 years, said: 'They are both intelligent dogs and they do an incredible job. They have become so good that they can detect even microscopic amounts of blood or other fluids. 'In these days of DNA testing, even those amounts of material can be the difference in solving a case.
'We have to rely on investigation teams placing us in the right places, but even then it can involve searching large areas. 'The dogs work brilliantly in any terrain. One day we might be searching moorland and the next we could be in a city centre. They can also work in all weathers, although when the weather is hot we have to be aware of fatigue and rest them every 20 minutes.'
The 'superdogs for hire' scheme began after a business plan was put together by the handlers and approved by South Yorkshire Police chiefs.
PC Ellis said they expected to do 'perhaps two jobs a year,' but are currently doing two a week.
Bordie collies are recognised as the world's most intelligent breed and springer spaniels are traditionally bred as a retriever dog.
Like all dogs of their breeds, Eddie and Frankie have an acute sense of smell. The difference between them and any 'normal' sniffer dog is that they have been put through a specific and specialist training regime devised by their handlers to make them into superdogs.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 08, 2015, 07:36:36 PM
Neither does Martin Grime say that Eddie is fallible. If you assert that he is then it's your place to provide a basis for your assertion.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them. EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
But there weren't... so what's he talking about?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 07:50:46 PM
This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.
??
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 08:19:58 PM
This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.
??
He probably knew that samples had been found but not the results.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 08, 2015, 08:28:16 PM
He probably knew that samples had been found but not the results.
A bit misleading isnt it? Positive forensic results of what? DNA? Where in a holiday apartment or a hire car would unidentified DNA be unusual? Aside from an efficient LCN lab, where would it be unusual to find DNA?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2015, 08:29:12 PM
If you can find a case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent where there hasn't been a death involved then I will definitely admit Eddie is. These dogs were chosen by the FBI because they don't get things wrong. They were regularly tested and trained every day to do their job so good luck.
In 2001 the dogs helped recover the body of Shane Collier in the Yorkshire Dales, enabling Barnsley officers to gain a murder conviction, while at the end of last year the FBI sought their help in a ten-year-old murder inquiry in the United States.
Border collie Frankie and springer spaniel Eddie work with PCs John Ellis and Martin Grime as part of the Victim Search team.
The two dogs, who cost £1,000 a day to hire from the South Yorkshire police force, were used earlier this year in the hunt for missing north Devon teenager Charlotte Pinkney and Bradford-born student Shafilea Ahmed, 17, who went missing from her home in Warrington last September. Also Alicia Eborne. Police dogs trained in sniffing out human remains were today searching the site of a new housing development in the hunt for missing mum Julie Crocker.
Their expert services were also called on by the FBI, but the two dogs were too busy to respond.
Detective dogs who sniff at less than £1,000 a day 28 April 2004 Daily Mail Chris Brooke
They may only be police dogs but Eddie and Frankie are on a higher pay scale than the Chief Constable and the Prime Minister. Such is the sniffing power of these canine detectives that their force charges £1,000 when they are hired out for a single day's work. Even at that price, they are in great demand across Britain and even from Europe and the U.S.
Not only can they find a body, no matter how well it may be hidden, but they have the ability to sniff out microscopic traces of blood or human remains. They have gone under floorboards, in rivers, caves, lofts and woodland in search of bodies. Even human remains that have been buried for years will not evade them.
Eddie, a three-year-old springer spaniel and formerly an unwanted pet, teamed up with Frankie, a four-year-old border collie and former stray, when South Yorkshire Police were looking for two dogs to train for the specialist work. Now available to any force willing to pay the £1,000-a-day going rate, Eddie and Frankie are regarded as the country's premier police sniffer dogs.
Over the last year they have worked for 17 forces across the UK.
Their biggest job lasted ten days and made £10,000. They have been hired out on average twice a week - making a total of around £100,000. The revenue raised is put back into funding the force.
Handlers PC Martin Grimes[SIC s/b 'Grime'], 47, and PC John Ellis, 50, began by training the dogs in standard police techniques. They went on to develop a specialist training programme to hone the dogs' extraordinary abilities.
Eddie and Frankie have been called in to help in some of the most difficult murder cases. They were recently flown to Northern Ireland where they found the body of missing pensioner Attracta Harron, 65, buried under 18 inches of clay in a riverbank at County Tyrone.
The victim's relatives were so grateful they asked to meet the dogs.
PC Grimes said: 'It appeared to be a comfort to them. If it hadn't have been for the dogs we wouldn't have found her.'
A man has since appeared in court charged with the murder. [Trevor Hamilton, later convicted]
The dogs played a major role in locating the body of Barnsley murder victim Shane Collier, 21, who had been cut up and buried five months earlier in remote woodland.
They have been recruited to find the body of 17-year-old Charlotte Pinkney, who was killed after a party in Ilfracombe, Devon, and have been called in to help police in Northern Ireland try to solve a backlog of 150 murders stretching back 25 years.
PC Ellis, a dog handler for 25 years, said: 'They are both intelligent dogs and they do an incredible job. They have become so good that they can detect even microscopic amounts of blood or other fluids. 'In these days of DNA testing, even those amounts of material can be the difference in solving a case.
'We have to rely on investigation teams placing us in the right places, but even then it can involve searching large areas. 'The dogs work brilliantly in any terrain. One day we might be searching moorland and the next we could be in a city centre. They can also work in all weathers, although when the weather is hot we have to be aware of fatigue and rest them every 20 minutes.'
The 'superdogs for hire' scheme began after a business plan was put together by the handlers and approved by South Yorkshire Police chiefs.
PC Ellis said they expected to do 'perhaps two jobs a year,' but are currently doing two a week.
Bordie collies are recognised as the world's most intelligent breed and springer spaniels are traditionally bred as a retriever dog.
Like all dogs of their breeds, Eddie and Frankie have an acute sense of smell. The difference between them and any 'normal' sniffer dog is that they have been put through a specific and specialist training regime devised by their handlers to make them into superdogs.
That is unsupported self publicity.
I repeat my question- if I can give you an example of a VRD dog (or even more than one) that alerted and later the live person was found, will you drop your resistance to admitting their fallibility?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2015, 08:41:29 PM
I repeat my question- if I can give you an example of a VRD dog (or even more than one) that alerted and later the live person was found, will you drop your resistance to admitting their fallibility?
No it has to be Eddie not a normal sniffer dog.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 08:43:06 PM
If you insist he is different for any other reason, please give a cite.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 08:44:56 PM
After the PdL and Jersey fiascos with Eddie and Keela, the independent National Police Improvement Agency called for a complete overhaul of the VRD system.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2015, 08:50:47 PM
After the PdL and Jersey fiascos with Eddie and Keela, the independent National Police Improvement Agency called for a complete overhaul of the VRD system.
'People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.' (Martin Grime)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2015, 08:52:27 PM
After the PdL and Jersey fiascos with Eddie and Keela, the independent National Police Improvement Agency called for a complete overhaul of the VRD system.
You seem to have spectacularly failed to appreciate the figures I posted earlier which show all the possibilities and associated probabilities. If it too hard for you, let me know and I can explain further.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2015, 08:53:07 PM
You seem to have spectacularly failed to appreciate the figures I posted earlier which show all the possibilities and associated probabilities. If it too hard for you, let me know and I can explain further.
Black Swan arguments do not work.
You have refused to address the mathematics of serial versus parallel testing.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2015, 08:56:42 PM
Because they give indications of evidence above 50/50.
More than 100 human bone fragments were also found at the site with one piece identified as coming from a child's leg and another from a child's ear. Tests showed some fragments were cut while others were burnt, suggesting that murders had taken place and the victims' bodies had possibly been cremated in a fireplace. Police are looking into around 97 allegations of abuse in Jersey dating back to the early 1960s and have said there are more than 100 suspects. Police excavated four secret underground chambers at the site, referred to as punishment rooms by some victims, and found shackles, a large bloodstained bath and children's teeth. In one cellar officers found the disturbing message "I've been bad for years and years" scrawled on a wooden post. Three men have been charged with sex abuse offences as part of the inquiry into historical abuse.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 08:58:30 PM
'People aren't right 100 per cent of the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.' (Martin Grime)
And dogs are not 100% right either.
How do you explain the NPIA and ACPO comments:
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 09:00:13 PM
More than 100 human bone fragments were also found at the site with one piece identified as coming from a child's leg and another from a child's ear. Tests showed some fragments were cut while others were burnt, suggesting that murders had taken place and the victims' bodies had possibly been cremated in a fireplace. Police are looking into around 97 allegations of abuse in Jersey dating back to the early 1960s and have said there are more than 100 suspects. Police excavated four secret underground chambers at the site, referred to as punishment rooms by some victims, and found shackles, a large bloodstained bath and children's teeth. In one cellar officers found the disturbing message "I've been bad for years and years" scrawled on a wooden post. Three men have been charged with sex abuse offences as part of the inquiry into historical abuse.
And the final finding was 'no crime'. As with Madeleine.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2015, 09:03:06 PM
I am open to anything from Madeleine being killed in an act of devil worship by the Tapas 9 , through 'woke and wandered' to 'killed in the apartment' &%54% to abducted alive and the dog *&*%£ alerts being false.
All I require is evidence to make a decision. There is inadequate evidence to decide as every investigation so far has found.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 09:21:29 PM
I am open to anything from Madeleine being killed in an act of devil worship by the Tapas 9 , through 'woke and wandered' to 'killed in the apartment' &%54% to abducted alive and the dog *&*%£ alerts being false.
All I require is evidence to make a decision. There is inadequate evidence to decide as every investigation so far has found.
I.e. There is no evidence of anything.
Which sums up SY's efforts to a tee.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 08, 2015, 09:27:18 PM
Links please to ANY blinded peer reviewed research that shows infallibility.
Science demands that positive claims need to be proved whereas sceptical claims are the null assumption.
Until infallibility is proved, science and forensics require that we assume fallibility.
The onus to provide links is on the person referring to something which only they have seen, but which they are using to support their argument;
Why is it that the burden is on the person who makes the claim? Well think whether or not it is a better way to proceed through life to accept anything and everything that people claim to be so. Experience should instruct every thinking human that there is a high probability that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. Some claims might be made with the claimant aware that the claim is not true and some claims might be made with the claimant thinking that they are true but being mistaken. As it is for most humans not a very good idea to proceed through life based on beliefs that are false and thinking beliefs and claims to be true when they are not, most humans and those who would use reason to guide them will want some evidence and reasoning to support a claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims to offer reason and evidence in support of those claims. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 09:52:10 PM
So as both Eddie and Keela have a probability of less than one, their joint test is less reliable than any single reaction from each of them. !
If they were independent events yes. You do have to look at all the different scenarios to get a full picture of the probabilities. As per my data, the only scenario that gives a false positive is if the Eddie is wrong and if Keela doesn't Alert. If both Eddie and Keela are wrong and assuming your 80% then that has a probability of 4%.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 08, 2015, 09:54:41 PM
You are quoting studies to support your claim. Please provide links to said studies.
Whether or not I know of studies does not mean that producing them would help. Black Swan argument again.
My contention is solely that dogs are NOT 100% accurate. That is the starting assumption for any scientific question- assume ignorance- we do not know. Then seek out evidence to disprove the notion that it is unknown.
All I am saying is that I am unaware of any evidence to prove they dogs are 100% accurate. If someone insists they are, they need to prove it. Meantime I continue to insist that we simply do not know and cannot assume any certainty for their accuracy.
That is scientific method.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 09:59:53 PM
If they were independent events yes. You do have to look at all the different scenarios to get a full picture of the probabilities. As per my data, the only scenario that gives a false positive is if the Eddie is wrong and if Keela doesn't Alert. If both Eddie and Keela are wrong and assuming your 80% then that has a probability of 4%.
You do not understand statistics.
Identification of cadaver odour by the use of Eddie and Keela is the product of their individual uncertainties, therefore cadaver odour detection is less than single test detections.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 08, 2015, 10:06:11 PM
Identification of cadaver odour by the use of Eddie and Keela is the product of their individual uncertainties, therefore cadaver odour detection is less than single test detections.
The only interesting probability is that of them both being wrong, not them both being right.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 08, 2015, 10:11:35 PM
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 08, 2015, 10:30:15 PM
There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 08, 2015, 10:43:13 PM
Meanwhile, we were supposed to receive American electronic equipment that detects human bodies thanks to the odour that emanates from them (Scent Transfer Unit 100). But the equipment, blocked by customs, arrived late. (TOTL)
In a study to evaluate the reliability of trained bloodhounds to identify and trail the scent of individual humans in high-traffic areas, eight bloodhounds completed five tests on 48-hour-old trails. Trails were in areas normally encountered in criminal casework—regional parks, college campuses, and urban environments. The trail layers came from different ethnic groups and ages, and trails ranged from .5 to 1.5 miles in length. Using scent pads collected with the Scent Transfer Unit-100 (STU-100), a vacuum-scent-collection device, five experienced bloodhound/handler teams had a success rate of 96 percent with no false identifications. Three novice bloodhound/handler teams had a 53 percent success rate and one false identification. False identifications are defined as an alert on a person whose scent was not present on the scent pad presented at the start of the trail (Harvey and Harvey 2003).
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.”
More about the cadaver dog debate... http://www.newschannel9.com/news/dog-982846-send-life.html
"...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.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 06:48:27 AM
Interest f to see Grime questioned effectively.
Together with the doubts from APCO and the NPIA after PdL and Jersey about the efficacy and utility of Eddie in particular and VRD dogs in general expressed in the below article, I would suggest hat anyone trying to build a direct link between alerts and evidence has little solid ground to base their case on.
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies "urgently" need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
The Government's National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
"There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done," the report states.
"Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve."
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have "the potential to cause complications in an inquiry".
"There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment," it concluded.
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the "scent of death" at the Haut de la Garenne children's home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.
The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
"The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died," according to the NPIA report.
"This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture."
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 09, 2015, 08:10:04 AM
there is no evidence maddie died in the apartmnet...according to Grime
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2015, 08:29:25 AM
So where is she dave, after 8 years, and unparalleled worldwide publicity ?
AND NOT ONE TRACE OF HER.
so where is the proof she is dead...there is none
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Brietta on May 09, 2015, 09:11:52 AM
Under controlled test conditions observers know exactly where and what the test samples are. Great care is taken to avoid cross contamination.
The McCann apartment and hire car were unknown quantities open to all sorts of innocent interference. For example, the information leaked to the press about boot imprints which was designed to paint the McCanns in the poorest of lights ... but which had no connection to them at all.
We know previous occupants detailed events when there had been blood contamination, proving that innocent depositions unconnected to the McCann family had previously occurred, providing an explanation why forensic scientists found no evidence linking samples to the McCanns, because simply there was none.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2015, 09:13:28 AM
The only interesting probability is that of them both being wrong, not them both being right.
I don't understand that at the moment (and I can't find your post with the chart at the moment).
From memory, I believe you were pointing out that if dog A was 80% accurate and dog B is 90& accurate, then the probability of both of them alerting correctly would be 72%. And turning that on its head, the probability of both being wrong would be 2%.
But then there is the issue of when one of them alerts accurately and the other doesn't (in a given instance). If you can't determine which one alerted correctly and which one didn't, because there's no evidence to verify it, that's a bit of a headache.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 10:43:05 AM
Why bother with the facts of the matter when there is perfectly usable fiction to hand?
I agree. There is a great cloud of unknowing- people glaring in ignorance and false assumptions at the same time.
It is a FACT that all scent dogs are open to substantial error It is a FACT that a twin Eddie Keela alert has its accuracy reduced by the product of their uncertainties It is a FACT that Eddie reacting alone adds no knowledge to the question of cadaver odour It is a FACT that Shannon Matthews was found after being 'declared dead' by VRDs It is a FACT that the NPIA and ACPO have severely questioned the use of VRDs including Eddie It is a FACT that no evidence of material of cadaver origin was found in PdL It is a FACT that cadaver origin was only indicated separately twice in PdL
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 09, 2015, 10:56:24 AM
I was thinking about Oxfordbloo's point and it reminded me of this (not dog-related as such):
Pseudoscience in the Witness Box
The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science. By Dahlia Lithwick (2 pages)
I'm now wondering whether a solution which I had thought would have increased the likelihood of a correct identification actually does...
"In some recent cases, courts have explicitly stated that microscopic hair analysis is a technique generally accepted in the scientific community. But courts also have recognized that testimony linking microscopic hair analysis with particular defendants is highly unreliable. In cases where there seems to be a morphological match (based on microscopic examination), it must be confirmed using mtDNA analysis; microscopic studies alone are of limited probative value. The committee found no scientific support for the use of hair comparisons for individualization in the absence of nuclear DNA. Microscopy and mtDNA analysis can be used in tandem and may add to one another’s value for classifying a common source, but no studies have been performed specifically to quantify the reliability of their joint use."
I'm now wondering whether a solution which I had thought would have increased the likelihood of a correct identification actually does...
"In some recent cases, courts have explicitly stated that microscopic hair analysis is a technique generally accepted in the scientific community. But courts also have recognized that testimony linking microscopic hair analysis with particular defendants is highly unreliable. In cases where there seems to be a morphological match (based on microscopic examination), it must be confirmed using mtDNA analysis; microscopic studies alone are of limited probative value. The committee found no scientific support for the use of hair comparisons for individualization in the absence of nuclear DNA. Microscopy and mtDNA analysis can be used in tandem and may add to one another’s value for classifying a common source, but no studies have been performed specifically to quantify the reliability of their joint use."
Scent Dogs and other practical forensic skills are on the edge of science and pseudo science. It is in the interest of people who employ such tools to claim validity above reality. That is why all such claims must be tested in court and in the laboratory using the principle of falsification- it is up to the proponent to prove that their contentions are not false; not up to the sceptics to prove that their scepticism is false.
It is better to start from a position of ignorance, rather than from a position of belief which maybbe a false assumption.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 11:03:27 AM
First, an alert by Eddie does not indicate a cadaver has been there. He also alerts to dead pigs and any human or pig blood. They also alert to transferred scent on objects that have previously been in the presence of or in contact with a cadaver.
If a blood dog fails to alert to the same place where he did, that suggests the possibility of the presence of a cadaver, but only a finite possibility.
That is not anyway an exclusive test.
There are however many cases where Eddie has alerted and no proof of death has been produced and there may be many cases where he has failed to react while the target odour was present. Research suggests that all scent dogs have false positives and false negatives.
And in answer to your question, the cadaver dog (I can't remember if it was Eddie) reacted in the case of the missing girl that later turned up alive hidden in the box under a bed. This was blamed on second hand furniture that had been bought from a house where someone had died.
So there is your example.
Eddie correctly alerted to cadaver scent, it was the humans who wrongly assumed where it originated.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 09, 2015, 11:05:24 AM
I agree. There is a great cloud of unknowing- people glaring in ignorance and false assumptions at the same time.
It is a FACT that all scent dogs are open to substantial error It is a FACT that a twin Eddie Keela alert has its accuracy reduced by the product of their uncertainties It is a FACT that Eddie reacting alone adds no knowledge to the question of cadaver odour It is a FACT that Shannon Matthews was found after being 'declared dead' by VRDs It is a FACT that the NPIA and ACPO have severely questioned the use of VRDs including Eddie It is a FACT that no evidence of material of cadaver origin was found in PdL It is a FACT that cadaver origin was only indicated separately twice in PdL
All denied by people determined to reach their own predetermined version of the 'truth' in order to protect their beliefs from reality.
It is a fact that no matter how much people try, they cannot PROVE that the alerts by these two dogs in this particular case were false.
Alerts behind the sofa in G5A were correct. (both dogs) Alerts to the hire car were corrrect. (both dogs)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 11:06:32 AM
Scent Dogs and other practical forensic skills are on the edge of science and pseudo science. It is in the interest of people who employ such tools to claim validity above reality. That is why all such claims must be tested in court and in the laboratory using the principle of falsification- it is up to the proponent to prove that their contentions are not false; not up to the sceptics to prove that their scepticism is false.
It is better to start from a position of ignorance, rather than from a position of belief which maybbe a false assumption.
But that's not always the reality in courtrooms... particularly if you can't afford defence counsel prepared to do their homework or independent experts. A bit scary.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 11:11:01 AM
Would you consider it good police practice not to discount their alerts until proved to be false?
If dogs started wildly howling at a plane I was about to board, I would certainly hope the police would verify the aircraft for any evidence or lack thereof. However, it would be difficult to justify keeping a plane grounded forever if no corroborating evidence was found.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: slartibartfast on May 09, 2015, 11:38:09 AM
I don't understand that at the moment (and I can't find your post with the chart at the moment).
From memory, I believe you were pointing out that if dog A was 80% accurate and dog B is 90& accurate, then the probability of both of them alerting correctly would be 72%. And turning that on its head, the probability of both being wrong would be 2%.
But then there is the issue of when one of them alerts accurately and the other doesn't (in a given instance). If you can't determine which one alerted correctly and which one didn't, because there's no evidence to verify it, that's a bit of a headache.
Agreed which is why I went through all possibilities.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 09, 2015, 11:41:59 AM
If dogs started wildly howling at a plane I was about to board, I would certainly hope the police would verify the aircraft for any evidence or lack thereof. However, it would be difficult to justify keeping a plane grounded forever if no corroborating evidence was found.
Different issue there really, as in your example, police would be looking for physical evidence of a bomb, not minute traces of some sort of explosive material.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 11:43:43 AM
Different issue there really, as in your example, police would be looking for physical evidence of a bomb, not minute traces of some sort of explosive material.
Yes and no, I would have thought. If a small quantity of a potentially suspicious substance were found, there would still be reason for a forensic analysis. If the analysis concluded that it was innocuous, but within the training parameters, then it would still be a case of better safe, than sorry.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 09, 2015, 12:08:48 PM
Being false can never be excluded as a possibility.
It is up to proponents to prove that they are correct in their assumptions
Both Forensics and Science start from an assumption of ignorance and require proof of any contention.
You didn't start from an assumption of ignorance though. You started with the assumption that dogs give false alerts.
If dogs do give false alerts, what does that tell us about these two dogs in particular? It tells us they may have made false alerts. In three alerts we know that something was found, so the alerts weren't false. In the case of the other alerts we don't know if they were true or false as nothing was found. It's really that simple. No need for complicated statistical analysis of probabilities. I am making no assumptions at all, so I have nothing to prove.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 09, 2015, 12:20:10 PM
I agree. There is a great cloud of unknowing- people glaring in ignorance and false assumptions at the same time.
It is a FACT that all scent dogs are open to substantial error It is a FACT that a twin Eddie Keela alert has its accuracy reduced by the product of their uncertainties It is a FACT that Eddie reacting alone adds no knowledge to the question of cadaver odour It is a FACT that Shannon Matthews was found after being 'declared dead' by VRDs It is a FACT that the NPIA and ACPO have severely questioned the use of VRDs including Eddie It is a FACT that no evidence of material of cadaver origin was found in PdL It is a FACT that cadaver origin was only indicated separately twice in PdL
Come again? The dog said Shannon Matthews was dead. You are pulling my leg of course. Please give cite other than a link to a very short Sky News comment on what it claimed to have seen.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Brietta on May 09, 2015, 12:20:29 PM
Agreed. But we cannot tell whether alerts are valid or not in any particular case.
There is practically nothing a dog cannot be trained to do and their skills are remarkable.
The particular case of Eddie and Keela working in Praia da Luz involved their deployment ... doing what they do ... indicating interest in particular areas ... the forensics harvested from those areas to be sent off for analysis ... which proved inconclusive.
That an entire belief system has been built around that proves only that the misrepresentation of the significance or not of the dogs has been overtaken by the desire to implicate the McCanns in guilt all based on ignorance of the actual significance of the work of the dogs.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 12:25:25 PM
You do not know that. It is a belief that you have. You have no proof that either Eddie alerted to a scent or that that scent was cadaver scent.
Please specify exactly which of his many alerts you claiming to be definitely an alert to cadaver odour, then we can discuss it in detail.
You're right of course, I should have said the evidence suggests Eddie correctly identified cadaver scent given the origins of the furniture.
I have no intention of getting into any prolonged debate over the prominence and/or authenticity of Eddie's alerts safe to say he was a remarkable dog with many successes.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 09, 2015, 12:33:08 PM
There is practically nothing a dog cannot be trained to do and their skills are remarkable.
The particular case of Eddie and Keela working in Praia da Luz involved their deployment ... doing what they do ... indicating interest in particular areas ... the forensics harvested from those areas to be sent off for analysis ... which proved inconclusive.
That an entire belief system has been built around that proves only that the misrepresentation of the significance or not of the dogs has been overtaken by the desire to implicate the McCanns in guilt all based on ignorance of the actual significance of the work of the dogs.
I've even seen comments insisting that Eddie was responsible for securing 200 murder convictions. If anyone questions it, the reply is to "read the files" - which few actualy bother to do on the assumption that someone else must have done.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 12:41:26 PM
You're right of course, I should have said the evidence suggests Eddie correctly identified cadaver scent given the origins of the furniture.
I have no intention of getting into any prolonged debate over the prominence and/or authenticity of Eddie's alerts safe to say he was a remarkable dog with many successes.
And documented failures or uncertains.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 12:45:32 PM
Come again? The dog said Shannon Matthews was dead. You are pulling my leg of course. Please give cite other than a link to a very short Sky News comment on what it claimed to have seen.
The NPIA report confirmed that because the investigating officers accepted the indication of cadaver odour suggested that the cadaver had been removed elsewhere that considerable police time was wasted searching areas other than where she was found.
For instance the house of her actual abductor was clean and hence the police did not search it as thoroughly as they might have if they had thought that she was still alive.
Belief without reason is dangerous.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 12:53:38 PM
Agreed. But we cannot tell whether alerts are valid or not in any particular case.
Successful alerts are only confirmed if evidence is later found which supports them. The dogs are merely a tool and a very useful tool at that.
Certainly there will be errors and wrongly interpreted alerts just as no two dogs will have the same ability. Bottom line is this, CSI and cadaver dogs can be extremely useful in the search for a missing person but as history has taught us they must not be relied on.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 09, 2015, 01:08:53 PM
Successful alerts are only confirmed if evidence is later found which supports them. The dogs are merely a tool and a very useful tool at that.
Certainly there will be errors and wrongly interpreted alerts just as no two dogs will have the same ability. Bottom line is this, CSI and cadaver dogs can be extremely useful in the search for a missing person but as history has taught us they must not be relied on.
I find that to be a fair statement.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 01:09:51 PM
The alerts are evidence. Problem is nobody knows what of.
They are evidence of the possible existence (an indication) of real evidence. Not in any way evidence of any culpability or situation beyond their own existence.
They have the same evidentiary value as motive or opportunity or personal habits or history or previous convictions- not real probative evidence, only routes to real evidence.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 09, 2015, 01:14:43 PM
You didn't start from an assumption of ignorance though. You started with the assumption that dogs give false alerts.
If dogs do give false alerts, what does that tell us about these two dogs in particular? It tells us they may have made false alerts. In three alerts we know that something was found, so the alerts weren't false. In the case of the other alerts we don't know if they were true or false as nothing was found. It's really that simple. No need for complicated statistical analysis of probabilities. I am making no assumptions at all, so I have nothing to prove.
What was found?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 09, 2015, 01:15:01 PM
Successful alerts are only confirmed if evidence is later found which supports them. The dogs are merely a tool and a very useful tool at that.
Certainly there will be errors and wrongly interpreted alerts just as no two dogs will have the same ability. Bottom line is this, CSI and cadaver dogs can be extremely useful in the search for a missing person but as history has taught us they must not be relied on.
I agree entirely with this, John. These dogs and their handlers, do a wonderful job of finding missing persons, but as in most things, they are not infallible.
A dear friend who died suddenly, a few years ago, trained these dogs and their handlers.
He was of the opinion, that without these dogs, it would be a hard and long task for the police to locate victims. However he also said that the cadaver dog alerts can only be accepted as successful if a cadaver is found. The same applies to drugs, blood or firearm, search dogs.
His own dog was a beautiful Springer spaniel.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 01:34:13 PM
I agree entirely with this, John. These dogs and their handlers, do a wonderful job of finding missing persons, but as in most things, they are not infallible.
A dear friend who died suddenly, a few years ago, trained these dogs and their handlers.
He was of the opinion, that without these dogs, it would be a hard and long task for the police to locate victims. However he also said that the cadaver dog alerts can only be accepted as successful if a cadaver is found. The same applies to drugs, blood or firearm, search dogs.
His own dog was a beautiful Springer spaniel.
Thanks Anna. The most professional and dedicated dog handlers will gain an understanding of their dog as time progresses. He or she will come to appreciate their dogs worth. Martin Grime had much confidence in Eddie and his ability to sniff out cadaver scent but even he could not go beyond stating that the dog alerts had "...no evidential reliability..." in the absence of other forensic evidence.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 01:37:19 PM
Thanks Anna. The most professional and dedicated dog handlers will gain an understanding of their dog as time progresses. He or she will come to appreciate their dogs worth. Martin Grime had much confidence in Eddie and his ability to sniff out cadaver scent.
Mediums have considerable confidence in the correctness of their communications with the spirit world.
Expert self assessment is valueless.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Anna on May 09, 2015, 02:00:11 PM
Mediums have considerable confidence in the correctness of their communications with the spirit world.
Expert self assessment is valueless.
If you are confident that your child will always be alert to the highway code and crossing the road safely, would that make your confidence, worthless? However if that child misjudged the safety of a road and an accident occurred, your confidence would be shattered.
Mr Grime believes in his dogs because he has no reason to think otherwise of their capabilities. And if he didn’t have confidence and trust in them, he would be in the wrong job. He does however accept that their alerts, where no corroborating evidence is found is of no use in a court of law.
If the reason for the alert whether true or false is unknown, then it is non evidential. There are also so many other factors that could cause the alert, that the dog may have indeed detected a scent. We don’t know and poor little Eddie cant tell us.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: John on May 09, 2015, 02:22:07 PM
The NPIA report confirmed that because the investigating officers accepted the indication of cadaver odour suggested that the cadaver had been removed elsewhere that considerable police time was wasted searching areas other than where she was found.
For instance the house of her actual abductor was clean and hence the police did not search it as thoroughly as they might have if they had thought that she was still alive.
Belief without reason is dangerous.
So you have read the entire report? If you have then you should find it as easy to post the link to it as it is to post yet another opinion backed up by only another little homily.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 09, 2015, 02:36:24 PM
I prefer valueless as it cannot be reliably measured much as Grime's confidence in his dogs cannot be measured.
The dogs detect the scent they are trained to find. If Keela finds no blood then Eddie suggests it is cadaver scent. It is up to the police to confirm the source of the scent. SY seem to be spending millions on this case to find that proof. It's very simple - if SY find proof to confirm the dog alerts this becomes a murder case and everything changes.
"But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter." (Sir Bernard Hogan Howe)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 09, 2015, 02:44:44 PM
The dogs detect the scent they are trained to find. If Keela finds no blood then Eddie suggests it is cadaver scent. It is up to the police to confirm the source of the scent. SY seem to be spending millions on this case to find that proof. It's very simple - if SY find proof to confirm the dog alerts this becomes a murder case and everything changes.
"But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter." (Sir Bernard Hogan Howe)
Each dog may alert when there is no target.
SY cannot possibly find proof of the dog alerts; no forensic matter remains to be investigated. The alerts will always remain mere indications.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 09, 2015, 03:15:49 PM
The dogs detect the scent they are trained to find. If Keela finds no blood then Eddie suggests it is cadaver scent. It is up to the police to confirm the source of the scent. SY seem to be spending millions on this case to find that proof. It's very simple - if SY find proof to confirm the dog alerts this becomes a murder case and everything changes.
"But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter." (Sir Bernard Hogan Howe)
so you would rule out accidental death
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 09, 2015, 03:43:12 PM
I wouldn't. If death occurred inside the apartment, I would think it almost certainly unintentional.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Anna on May 09, 2015, 05:05:54 PM
The dogs detect the scent they are trained to find. If Keela finds no blood then Eddie suggests it is cadaver scent. It is up to the police to confirm the source of the scent. SY seem to be spending millions on this case to find that proof. It's very simple - if SY find proof to confirm the dog alerts this becomes a murder case and everything changes.
"But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter." (Sir Bernard Hogan Howe)
Come on now, Pat. What proof could ever be found that the child died in 5A, except for a confession, of course?
If she did die in 5A, why would you think it had to be Murder?
A Slip of the tongue by Sir Howe and the uncorroborated dog alerts, do not= Murder, or the need for a murder hunt.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 09, 2015, 05:11:06 PM
Come on now, Pat. What proof could ever be found that the child died in 5A, except for a confession, of course?
If she did die in 5A, why would you think it had to be Murder?
A Slip of the tongue by Sir Howe and the uncorroborated dog alerts, do not= Murder, or the need for a murder hunt.
My name is not Pat! If proof of death is found it would become a murder investigation. Accidental deaths are not covered up unless other serious incriminating factors are involved.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Anna on May 09, 2015, 06:37:14 PM
My name is not Pat! If proof of death is found it would become a murder investigation. Accidental deaths are not covered up unless other serious incriminating factors are involved.
Sorry Pathfinder, I like to do shortcuts in names, as do many on here, as it seems friendlier, but I will only call you "Pathfinder" in future. My apologies, if I caused you discomfort of any kind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So if a body was found and murder was suspected, how would it link to the dogs alerts?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 09, 2015, 06:41:08 PM
Sorry Pathfinder, I like to do shortcuts in names, as do many on here, as it seems friendlier, but I will only call you "Pathfinder" in future. My apologies, if I caused you discomfort of any kind. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So if a body was found and murder was suspected, how would it link to the dogs alerts?
Thank you Anna. Path is fine for shorter. They would believe that death happened inside the apartment. They would be pretty certain of that theory.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Anna on May 09, 2015, 08:09:26 PM
Thank you Anna. Path is fine for shorter. They would believe that death happened inside the apartment. They would be pretty certain of that theory.
Happy, that no offence was caused to you, Pathfinder.
I'm afraid that we have slipped off topic, so we must get back on again.
Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: misty on May 10, 2015, 12:33:12 PM
Deleted - posted twice.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: misty on May 10, 2015, 12:44:37 PM
http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/dogs/ online features Canine Case Closed? July 15, 2004 by Evan Walker The conviction of a renowned handler raises questions about the use of dogs in archaeology.
Michigan native Sandra Anderson is set to be sentenced on August 24 in Federal Court, Southern Division of the Eastern District of Michigan, for planting evidence at a crime scene and making false statements to authorities. A respected scent-detection dog trainer and handler, Anderson pled guilty earlier this year. Since the charges were filed last fall, the work of Anderson and her dog Eagle has been questioned.
Sandra Anderson rose to prominence in 2000 as a dog trainer and cadaver dog handler specializing in human remains detection. Having helped start a dog training and search company called Canine Solutions, Inc., she later became director of the Great Lakes Search and Rescue of Michigan K-9 Unit. Undertaking searches for nothing more than travel costs, Anderson and Eagle became popular with police departments as an inexpensive tool in their investigations. Sandra and her dog were even asked to Panama and Bosnia to search for graves of victims of political oppression and war crimes. Anderson also visited several archaeological sites and old cemeteries, marking burials or establishing area boundaries. From her work, Sandra Anderson and Eagle gained media attention, appearing in at least one documentary. And in 2000, ARCHAEOLOGY ran an article about Anderson, her dog Eagle, and their supposed ability to detect ancient buried remains through the dog's keen sense of smell. When Sandra Anderson and Eagle were asked to help on a murder investigation in Oscoda, Michigan, in April 2002, nobody could have foreseen the outcome. After an investigator thought he saw Anderson remove something from her boot where she signaled the find of a small bone, a close eye was kept on her. The next day, when she alleged that Eagle had discovered a piece of carpet in an area previously scoured by investigators, Anderson was arrested on suspicion of planting evidence at the crime scene.
According to a Department of Justice press release, on August 20, 2003, Sandra Anderson was charged with five counts of falsifying and concealing material facts, three counts of obstruction of justice, and two counts of lying to law enforcement officials. The charges relate to seven crime scenes in which Anderson searched in the states of Michigan and Ohio. (Eagle reportedly died of heart disease in November 2003.)
On March 10, 2004, the Department of Justice announced that Sandra Anderson had pleaded guilty to the charges. A press release stated that, "Anderson had repeatedly planted human remains, fibers and items stained with her own blood, which she then represented as evidence." The release also stated that "Anderson made false statements to authorities in an attempt to cover up her wrongdoing."
Under the plea agreement, however, Anderson hopes to be sentenced to 18 to 24 months in jail, along with five years supervised release and a fine to be determined. (Check back with Archaeology.org for a sentencing update in August.)
Since her admission of guilt, those who worked with Sandra Anderson have been left questioning the validity of her results. With convictions hanging in the balance, many criminal court cases that Anderson worked on have had to be re-examined to determine how crucial her testimony was and whether or not her evidence was substantiated. In many of the cases, Anderson's testimony was not critical and could be compared with other evidence to assess its veracity. For her archaeological work, however, testing her claims is not as easy. Unlike a crime scene, proof needed to validate or reject Sandra Anderson's claims lies buried beneath the earth One case that is suspect is Anderson and Eagle's September 2002 work on a controversial site in the midst of a land-use dispute between the Prairie Band Potawatomi and Ho-Chunk Nation American-Indians and Wood County officials in central Wisconsin. Called in to find any American Indian graves beyond the known boundaries of the "Indian Bill" and "John Ne-We" cemeteries at Skunk Hill, Anderson marked with flags the supposed locations of numerous burials. After reading about Anderson's visit in local newspapers, archaeologists were skeptical of her findings. Robert Birmingham, then Wisconsin State Archaeologist, calls Anderson's extensive grave markings "ludicrous based on the research we had done." He notes, "that many graves would make it the biggest Native American cemetery in the Upper Midwest." Since Anderson claimed that there were burials outside the original cemeteries, Leslie Eisenberg of the Wisconsin State Archaeologist's office probed the ground and found nothing but a few inches of soil resting on bedrock, too shallow to receive graves.
The only sure way to find out whether Sandra Anderson and Eagle were accurate at Skunk Hill and other sites would be to excavate for remains where she said they were, but, at most of the sites Anderson worked on land-rights issues have prevented this. The problems with Anderson and Eagle's work raises questions about the reliability of all scent detection dogs, but few studies have been conducted to evaluate the abilities of such dogs objectively. A 1998 study by Debra Komar at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, analyzed and interpreted the effectiveness of eight dog and handler teams at locating simulated animal scattered or scavenged human and animal remains among snow and leaf cover. Tests consisted of "blind searches" or trials in which handlers did not how many items to search for or where they were hidden. The items included dry human and animal bone, and gauze and small articles of clothing soaked in human decomposition fluids and then dried. The study revealed considerable variation in the success rates of the dog-handler teams. The individual dog-handler teams had success rates ranging from 55 to 95% over the trials, and the overall recovery rate for the trials was 81%. Testing dog reliability in cold weather prompted the study, and Komar found that "low ambient temperature and snow depth appear to have no effect on the dog's performance." More important was her conclusion that "results indicate the need for a thorough training program which would expose both dog and handler to a wide range of variables in terms of both body elements and scene terrain."
A 2003 study at the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, tested the effectiveness of cadaver dogs (dogs trained to detect old and new remains) and their handlers at finding buried human remains. Keith Jacobi, Alanna Lasseter, and their colleagues, tested the abilities of four dog and handler teams to find ten fresh and skeletal human remains items buried between one and two feet deep. Five separate trials were conducted in warm and humid conditions and videotaped. The trials recorded:
Alerts: dog properly marked the site of remains and the handler recognized it. Unrecognized alerts: an alert in which the dog located the human remains but the handler did not recognize the signal because it was not the alert the dog was trained to give. Narrowed areas: dog and handler team identified the area in which remains were situated, but the handlers were unable to specify the location. False alerts: dog and handler signaled remains where they were not present. No alert: no signal was given by the dog and handler team that remains were present in the test area.
Overall, there were only two alerts correctly signaling the location of remains, four unrecognized alerts and six narrowed area signals, indicating possible communication problems between the dogs and their handlers. In addition, there were six false alerts and 22 no alerts, suggesting significant problems of detection by the teams. One possible factor in the variable success rates in the Alabama study could be that in warmer weather, dogs face difficulties such as panting and fatigue. To accurately detect the faint scent of buried human remains cadaver dogs must sniff the air slowly and carefully. "Even with multiple breaks and water availability at all times, dogs panted and thus were limited in their smelling ability" the study noted. The study also concluded that communication between dog and handler was also a major problem. "The dogs are giving signals indicating that human remains are present, but the handler ignores those cues." Jacobi and the research team are compiling a video archive of the trials for handlers to use for training purposes. Handlers can watch the tapes and use them to improve their search methods and communication with their dogs. The study also suggested that to increase reliability and effectiveness there is a "definite need for standardized training for all dog and handler teams."
Despite difficulties revealed by the study, one find particularly intrigued Jacobi. "The fourth team made the most surprising positive alert because they were able to locate one small skeletal cervical vertebra buried 2 ft deep in the large heavily wooded area," he recalls. In the study, the find was "a very dry element of an individual who was skeletonized over 15 to 20 years ago."
The Alberta and Alabama studies, though limited in their scope and number of trials, show both positive and negative results for scent detection dogs. In both studies, dogs were able to locate human remains but the overall reliability of individual dog and handler teams remains in question. In the Alberta study, the recovery percentage for one dog was 55% while another was 95%. The Alabama study showed a much larger number of false alerts and no alerts than correct alerts. Together, the studies show a definite variance in accuracy and reliability among dog and handler teams. Possible factors affecting dog and handler team ability could be weather, soil condition, training, and dog-handler communication. Given such findings and a lack of thorough studies, the Alabama team hopes to study scent detection dogs more extensively in the future. As many scent detection dogs are home trained, training equality may play a role in the varying reliability of cadaver dog training. Accordingly, the Alabama study suggested that the "availability of appropriate materials and methods through sanctioned dog training facilities might assist handlers in accurately training dogs for discovery of not only buried fresh human remains, but also buried human skeletal remains." Though not applied to human remains detection, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has a certification system in place for dogs and handlers used in search and rescue situations. According to the FEMA website, "each canine/handler team must pass rigorous national certification in urban search and rescue." Handlers are certified by "written and verbal tests regarding search-and-rescue strategies, briefing, and debriefing skills, and canine handling skills." In addition, canine certification "includes proper command control, agility skills, barking alert skills to notify rescuers of a victim and willingness to overcome innate fears of tunnels and wobbly surfaces under the guidance of the handler."
Over the years different fields of scent detection have developed along with associated groups and organizations aimed at advancing the use of scent detection dogs. One of these organizations is the Institute for Canine Forensics (ICF), founded by Adela Morris as a nonprofit organization focused on education and exploration in the field of canine scent detection. According to its mission statement, ICF seeks to "promote and elevate professionalism in the use of specially trained canines for forensic evidence and human remains detection." As part of its mission, ICF has also been exploring the use of dogs in archaeology.
In referring to the Alabama study, Morris states that "dogs are only as good as the training they have received and the only way you know the quality is to test." She cautions against directly applying such studies to dogs used for archaeological work. The dogs that can be used in archaeology, she says, are a new type of trained dog called Historical Human Remains Detection (HHRD) dogs, as Morris refers to them. These dogs are specifically trained to find "old" remains only. "The new generation of specifically trained HHRD dogs in general do not work on fresh blood or any fresh scents," says Morris, adding that puppies are instead "imprinted and given a solid foundation on old bones and teeth" and "later they get experience working in old cemeteries." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is a little more but it relates to archaeology.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 12:47:57 PM
That is useful background, but dog believers will monster bar all evidence.
Everything will be not applicable to Eddie.
Only Eddie was an EVRD. Eddie was the best dog ever. Grime would never plant evidence because he is an English gentleman and police officer. It wasn't so hot in PdL Eddie was certified Eddie earned more tan the Chief Constable (a tabloid confection)
And so on.
I avoid putting too much stress on supportive analysis because peope cherry pick and monster bar.
Legally and scientifically it is the responsibility of the asserter to provide evidence, not the sceptic.
I have no idea whether Eddie was perfect or incompetent. I want someone to show me what the case is.
The one thing I know is that anyone who claims a particular probability needs to have empirical proof to support their beliefs
I just do not know.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2015, 01:16:46 PM
Eddie doesn't need to prove anything. He has proved himself in many cases and that's why these dogs were chosen and highly sought after by many police forces, FBI etc. The police have to prove their evidence.
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
Harrison also suggests that we use the skills of two totally remarkable dogs: the first an EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), achieves outstanding performance in the detection of human cadaver odour; the second, a CSI dog (Crime Scene Investigation) is capable of smelling the tiniest trace of blood, knowing how to recognise its human origin. To convince us of their capability and the extraordinary work carried out by these very special detectives in the course of over 200 investigations, he screens a video for us, showing their training and their intervention on the ground.
He suggests that we start the operations with the inspection of apartment 5A, then those occupied by the McCanns' friends. Robert Murat's house will also be subjected to thorough examination. In addition, all the vehicles used by all of them will be sniffed by the dogs.
Meanwhile, we were supposed to receive American electronic equipment that detects human bodies thanks to the odour that emanates from them (Scent Transfer Unit 100). But the equipment, blocked by customs, arrived late. We didn't need to use it, having obtained very concrete results, thanks to the dogs.
THE ENGLISH SPECIALIST DOG TEAM
The heat is scorching on this thirtieth day of July 2007 when two Springer Spaniels, Eddie and Keela, get off the British Airways plane, accompanied by their trainer, Martin Grime. An air-conditioned vehicle is waiting to take them to their accommodation. A vet, who will be on hand during their stay, has been brought in to intervene in case of illness or if the dogs get bitten by a snake. Their mission: to find Madeleine's body and expose those responsible.
Eddie has been involved in a great number of cases, helping the police to resolve a good many riddles, thanks to his sense of smell. Even if the body has been moved, objects the body has touched have been contaminated by its odour, especially porous materials, fabrics, the upholstery in cars, etc. And that odour, Eddie knows how to recognise out of a thousand.
Keela, a scenes of crime specialist, is capable of locating particles of blood even after a place has been cleaned with chemical products or bleach. Sometimes, the residues are so microscopic they are missed by the instruments of the forensic police, as sophicticated as they are, and it's impossible to harvest them without taking all of what they are on.
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.
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.
Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect's car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn't be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place - close to a river - where the victim's body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.
The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner's home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man''s vehicle, alerted to cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.
It's also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman's body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
The achievements of the dog detectives are the result of a very long apprenticeship. It all starts with the selection of the best puppies when they are only a few months old. The most talented breed for this unusual "profession," is the Springer Spaniel. The trainer, Martin Grime, and his pupils undergo aptitude tests every year in order to obtain certificates proving their capability. In Great Britain, the police have no hesitation in calling in the specialist dog teams to assist in certain criminal investigations. Their skills are nowadays recognised by journalists, police and courts all over the world.
EXAMINATION OF THE OCEAN CLUB APARTMENTS BY THE SPECIALIST DOGS
On August 3rd 2007, I am having dinner in Praia da rocha, near Portimão, with my friend Gaivota. Unable to hide my anxiety, I keep looking at my watch and my telephone. Gaivota asks me if everything is OK: I respond with an absent-minded "Yes." A few kilometres away one of the most important search operations ever carried out in Portugal has begun. Perhaps we will finally manage to clear up the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.
The investigation starts in apartment 5A. The grey jeep transporting the dogs pulls into the car park in front of the building. There is hope and anxiety on people's faces. Martin Grime gets out of the car, holding Eddie on a tight leash. He takes it off and orders Eddie to sit down. Instead of obeying as would be expected of such a well-trained dog, Eddie immediately rushes into the building. He then goes to and fro between the lounge and the bedroom in an agitated manner. Martin wonders what could be making his animal so nervous and calls him back to give precise orders. An investigator is filming the entire scene. A little later, Eddie is examining the floor in the parents' bedroom, near the wardrobe, when he lets out a strident howl, indicating that he has detected a cadaver odour. The investigators have hardly recovered from their amazement, when another, equally impressive, howl startles them. This time, Eddie has picked out that same odour under the window, just behind the sofa, on one of the walls in the lounge. That evening, in apartment 5A, the investigators begin to glimpse what might have happened.
At around 10pm, police officers see Gerry McCann, going past the apartment at the wheel of his hire car, a Renault Mégane Scenic, an impenetrable look on his face.
Then it's Keela's turn to intervene. She points her muzzle at the same place where Eddie gave the alert: traces of blood are found on the tiling between the window and the sofa. Outside, Eddie barks twice: on the veranda at the back of the building and in the garden, just below it. At this place, the dog's bark is weaker and might mean "maybe, who knows....". Thus from the indications provided by Eddie, we can pinpoint the places where the body was moved around. Apartments 5B, 5D and 5H, where the McCanns' friends stayed, are examined that same night. The investigators are expecting new developments. However, nothing happens. Eddie does not show the slightest reaction. Therefore, Keela does not get involved.
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 01:20:06 PM
Quoting Amaral's ill-imformed views from his legally sanctioned book does your argument no favours at all.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 01:22:03 PM
Eddie doesn't need to prove anything. He has proved himself in many cases and that's why these dogs were chosen and highly sought after by many police forces, FBI etc. The police have to prove their evidence.
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
Harrison also suggests that we use the skills of two totally remarkable dogs: the first an EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), achieves outstanding performance in the detection of human cadaver odour; the second, a CSI dog (Crime Scene Investigation) is capable of smelling the tiniest trace of blood, knowing how to recognise its human origin. To convince us of their capability and the extraordinary work carried out by these very special detectives in the course of over 200 investigations, he screens a video for us, showing their training and their intervention on the ground.
He suggests that we start the operations with the inspection of apartment 5A, then those occupied by the McCanns' friends. Robert Murat's house will also be subjected to thorough examination. In addition, all the vehicles used by all of them will be sniffed by the dogs.
Meanwhile, we were supposed to receive American electronic equipment that detects human bodies thanks to the odour that emanates from them (Scent Transfer Unit 100). But the equipment, blocked by customs, arrived late. We didn't need to use it, having obtained very concrete results, thanks to the dogs.
THE ENGLISH SPECIALIST DOG TEAM
The heat is scorching on this thirtieth day of July 2007 when two Springer Spaniels, Eddie and Keela, get off the British Airways plane, accompanied by their trainer, Martin Grime. An air-conditioned vehicle is waiting to take them to their accommodation. A vet, who will be on hand during their stay, has been brought in to intervene in case of illness or if the dogs get bitten by a snake. Their mission: to find Madeleine's body and expose those responsible.
Eddie has been involved in a great number of cases, helping the police to resolve a good many riddles, thanks to his sense of smell. Even if the body has been moved, objects the body has touched have been contaminated by its odour, especially porous materials, fabrics, the upholstery in cars, etc. And that odour, Eddie knows how to recognise out of a thousand.
Keela, a scenes of crime specialist, is capable of locating particles of blood even after a place has been cleaned with chemical products or bleach. Sometimes, the residues are so microscopic they are missed by the instruments of the forensic police, as sophicticated as they are, and it's impossible to harvest them without taking all of what they are on.
Eddie is always the first to be brought onto a site. Once he has discerned the odour that he knows so well, it's Keela's turn to go into action, on the lookout for the slightest whiff of blood. The simultaneous presence of the two elements in a given place - blood and cavaver odours - is taken to indicate that a body has been there and that it's probably there that the death occurred.
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.
Amongst the most media-covered cases, which they contributed to resolving, is that of the disappearance in Northern Ireland of Attracta Harron, who was last seen when she was returning home on foot, after having been to church. All searches carried out by the police were unsuccessful. The main suspect's car having been totally burnt out in a mysterious fire, couldn't be examined. They called in Eddie, who examined the charred remains of the vehicle and immediately picked out the characteristic odour. Human tissue was found amongst the debris, the DNA of which corresponded to the missing woman. Later, the dog indicated the place - close to a river - where the victim's body had been abandoned. At the home of the suspect, where the police were searching for incriminating evidence, Eddie identified cadaver odour in one of the bedrooms. The man confessed to having killed the woman then moving her body to the banks of the river.
The case of Amanda Edwards, reported missing, is also very impressive. The police, who conducted a search of her ex-partner's home, found small bloodstains there, but no trace of a body. The dog, who was brought in for the examination of the man''s vehicle, alerted to cadaver odour on the tools stored in the boot (a shovel, a level and a compactor). The police went to the building site where the suspect had worked a few days before and discovered the body, buried in a garage. The murderer had made efficient use of his tools to carry out his task.
It's also thanks to the help of the dogs that the case of Charlotte Pinkley, a missing British woman, who had been imprisoned by her ex-partner, was resolved. The police requested the help of the specialist dog team to try to find the young woman's body. Eddie picked out a place where the abductor had provisionally left his victim. In the surrounding area, the investigators found the button from a dress that had belonged to Charlotte. That clue exposed the murderer, who ended up showing the police the place where he had hidden the body.
More recently, it's Eddie who helps to find a body buried under a flagstone at the former orphanage, Haut-de-la-Garenne, in Jersey, setting for a terrible case of paedophilia and child murder.
The achievements of the dog detectives are the result of a very long apprenticeship. It all starts with the selection of the best puppies when they are only a few months old. The most talented breed for this unusual "profession," is the Springer Spaniel. The trainer, Martin Grime, and his pupils undergo aptitude tests every year in order to obtain certificates proving their capability. In Great Britain, the police have no hesitation in calling in the specialist dog teams to assist in certain criminal investigations. Their skills are nowadays recognised by journalists, police and courts all over the world.
EXAMINATION OF THE OCEAN CLUB APARTMENTS BY THE SPECIALIST DOGS
On August 3rd 2007, I am having dinner in Praia da rocha, near Portimão, with my friend Gaivota. Unable to hide my anxiety, I keep looking at my watch and my telephone. Gaivota asks me if everything is OK: I respond with an absent-minded "Yes." A few kilometres away one of the most important search operations ever carried out in Portugal has begun. Perhaps we will finally manage to clear up the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance.
The investigation starts in apartment 5A. The grey jeep transporting the dogs pulls into the car park in front of the building. There is hope and anxiety on people's faces. Martin Grime gets out of the car, holding Eddie on a tight leash. He takes it off and orders Eddie to sit down. Instead of obeying as would be expected of such a well-trained dog, Eddie immediately rushes into the building. He then goes to and fro between the lounge and the bedroom in an agitated manner. Martin wonders what could be making his animal so nervous and calls him back to give precise orders. An investigator is filming the entire scene. A little later, Eddie is examining the floor in the parents' bedroom, near the wardrobe, when he lets out a strident howl, indicating that he has detected a cadaver odour. The investigators have hardly recovered from their amazement, when another, equally impressive, howl startles them. This time, Eddie has picked out that same odour under the window, just behind the sofa, on one of the walls in the lounge. That evening, in apartment 5A, the investigators begin to glimpse what might have happened.
At around 10pm, police officers see Gerry McCann, going past the apartment at the wheel of his hire car, a Renault Mégane Scenic, an impenetrable look on his face.
Then it's Keela's turn to intervene. She points her muzzle at the same place where Eddie gave the alert: traces of blood are found on the tiling between the window and the sofa. Outside, Eddie barks twice: on the veranda at the back of the building and in the garden, just below it. At this place, the dog's bark is weaker and might mean "maybe, who knows....". Thus from the indications provided by Eddie, we can pinpoint the places where the body was moved around. Apartments 5B, 5D and 5H, where the McCanns' friends stayed, are examined that same night. The investigators are expecting new developments. However, nothing happens. Eddie does not show the slightest reaction. Therefore, Keela does not get involved.
From then on, we are sure that, at a given moment, there was a body in apartment 5A. We now have to interview firemen, medical services personnel, previous tenants and employees of the Ocean Club to make sure that no death has taken place in this accommodation, which they confirm. So, we can conclude that the odour discovered is certainly that of Madeleine Beth McCann. (TOTL)
Thank you for so closely confirming the reaction of an unscientific dog believer, as predicted in my post immediately above it. All Black Swan and Monster Barring.
Nice cut and paste though.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: pathfinder73 on May 10, 2015, 01:33:27 PM
Thank you for so closely confirming the reaction of an unscientific dog believer, as predicted in my post immediately above it. All Black Swan and Monster Barring.
Nice cut and paste though.
I can't be bothered with your constant waffling. Amaral's point of view is relevant to this case and he is 100% confident the dogs were correct.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
Thank you for so closely confirming the reaction of an unscientific dog believer, as predicted in my post immediately above it. All Black Swan and Monster Barring.
Nice cut and paste though.
As you have said, no-one knows whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not. Your 'skeptical' stance, which you have attempted to support by quoting possibly unreliable studies and statistical analysis is no more valid than the stance of the dog 'believers'.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: OxfordBloo on May 10, 2015, 01:44:35 PM
As you have said, no-one knows whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not. Your 'skeptical' stance, which you have attempted to support by quoting possibly unreliable studies and statistical analysis is no more valid than the stance of the dog 'believers'.
I don't rely on any empirical evidence. I have neither produced nor quoted any.
My position is simply that their accuracy is unknown and I am open to persuasion.
Persuade ahead.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: misty on May 10, 2015, 01:51:50 PM
As you have said, no-one knows whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not. Your 'skeptical' stance, which you have attempted to support by quoting possibly unreliable studies and statistical analysis is no more valid than the stance of the dog 'believers'.
Not only does no-one know whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not, no-one knows exactly how the traces of any correct alerts came to be in the apartment/car/on the clothes.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Benice on May 10, 2015, 02:14:06 PM
I wonder why no alerts were made by the dogs in the last place the McCanns were that night - i.e. the Payne's apartment - where they spent several hours after the police had departed - in the same clothing they had worn all that evening - and any scent would have been at it's strongest?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 10, 2015, 03:29:03 PM
I don't rely on any empirical evidence. I have neither produced nor quoted any.
My position is simply that their accuracy is unknown and I am open to persuasion.
Persuade ahead.
Clearly untrue from your first post on this thread. That's why i have spent so much time asking for links to your 'scientific' experiments which you refused to produce;
In your first post you said;
My favourite scientifically valid experiment on scent dogs was one where they and their handlers were asked to run a course of a series of patches of material and determine whether or not they bad the target odour. In the first course of the experiment no information was allowed to the handlers and no positive reactions occurred with any dog handler pair. In the second run the handlers were told in advance which patches had the target scent. This time the dogs were nearly totally accurate.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2015, 03:48:37 PM
Clearly untrue from your first post on this thread. That's why i have spent so much time asking for links to your 'scientific' experiments which you refused to produce;
My favourite scientifically valid experiment on scent dogs was one where they and their handlers were asked to run a course of a series of patches of material and determine whether or not they bad the target odour. In the first course of the experiment no information was allowed to the handlers and no positive reactions occurred with any dog handler pair. In the second run the handlers were told in advance which patches had the target scent. This time the dogs were nearly totally accurate.
so the dogs were cued by the handlers
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 10, 2015, 04:33:29 PM
that's right and it showed the dog's were cued by the handlers
But studies such as that cannot be relied on as I showed earlier. Scientific method works well on the natural world, but not on people. I'm not going to repeat it all, just read back.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 10, 2015, 05:14:38 PM
But studies such as that cannot be relied on as I showed earlier. Scientific method works well on the natural world, but not on people. I'm not going to repeat it all, just read back.
you don't have to repeat it...SY believe maddie may still be alive...so what does that say for the alerts
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 10, 2015, 05:18:11 PM
I guess it says both are unproven possibilities,
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 10, 2015, 05:42:12 PM
you don't have to repeat it...SY believe maddie may still be alive...so what does that say for the alerts
The Met Police Commissioner wasn't briefed then;
But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter. The file was handed to that team and we were liasing with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx *&*%£
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 07:44:08 AM
But in terms of that file, what happened if you recall was that the family handed to our team that are investigating the, or reviewing the murder of...of sorry, reviewing the missing girl. errr the McCann daughter. The file was handed to that team and we were liasing with Leicestershire police which is where the McCann family live..... http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx *&*%£
you want to live in absolute denial of the facts in this case. Typical McCann sceptic. SY have stated on several occasions clearly that they believe maddie may still be alive. Hogan confirms this in the post above when he corrects his mistake
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 08:16:25 AM
you want to live in absolute denial of the facts in this case. Typical McCann sceptic. SY have stated on several occasions clearly that they believe maddie may still be alive. Hogan confirms this in the post above when he corrects his mistake [/quote
I'm not in denial, davel, I assure you. Of course she may be alive, but either Hogan-Howe is a bungling idiot or he forgot the official line. Why on earth mention murder? Freudian slip? That kind of mistake would get a business employee in trouble. Remember the BP boss Tony Hayward?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2015, 08:19:14 AM
you want to live in absolute denial of the facts in this case. Typical McCann sceptic. SY have stated on several occasions clearly that they believe maddie may still be alive. Hogan confirms this in the post above when he corrects his mistake [/quote
I'm not in denial, davel, I assure you. Of course she may be alive, but either Hogan-Howe is a bungling idiot or he forgot the official line. Why on earth mention murder? Freudian slip? That kind of mistake would get a business employee in trouble. Remember the BP boss Tony Hayward?
Why do "sceptics" think his mention of "murder" points in any way to the McCanns? Do you actually think the Met might believe the McCanns murdered their daughter?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 08:25:46 AM
you want to live in absolute denial of the facts in this case. Typical McCann sceptic. SY have stated on several occasions clearly that they believe maddie may still be alive. Hogan confirms this in the post above when he corrects his mistake [/quote
I'm not in denial, davel, I assure you. Of course she may be alive, but either Hogan-Howe is a bungling idiot or he forgot the official line. Why on earth mention murder? Freudian slip? That kind of mistake would get a business employee in trouble. Remember the BP boss Tony Hayward?
Why mention murder...because maddie almost certainly has been murdered and as Alfred points out that rules out the parents. Hogan probabaly had a lot of other things on his mind...simple
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 08:34:28 AM
Why do "sceptics" think his mention of "murder" points in any way to the McCanns? Do you actually think the Met might believe the McCanns murdered their daughter?
T'was, strangely, you who mentioned the McCanns in connection with 'murder' not me. &%+((£
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 08:39:04 AM
Why mention murder...because maddie almost certainly has been murdered and as Alfred points out that rules out the parents. Hogan probabaly had a lot of other things on his mind...simple
If Madeleine was murdered how can the last people to see her be ruled out?
So had Tony Hayward lots on his mind, but it didn't cut the mustard with BP. People in high places get loads of money to be on the ball, not to make silly mistakes.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 11, 2015, 08:41:59 AM
Hogan Howe made a freudian slip, inadvertently revealing what was really going on.
He can try and take back what he said, but it's too late for that.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 09:22:06 AM
He can try and take back what he said, but it's too late for that.
So in the minds of sceptics - one tiny slip of the tongue by one person reveals all - and we now know without any doubt whatsoever that SY have been having us all on about their conclusions in this case. One of which is that without any evidence of death Madeleine may still be alive. Apparently this - and everything else they have told us - is now defunct because of a slip of the tongue.
Typical sceptic 'logic' - not to mention strawclutching of mega proportions IMO
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 11, 2015, 09:42:26 AM
So in the minds of sceptics - one tiny slip of the tongue by one person reveals all - and we now know without any doubt whatsoever that SY have been having us all on about their conclusions in this case. One of which is that without any evidence of death Madeleine may still be alive. Apparently this - and everything else they have told us - is now defunct because of a slip of the tongue.
Typical sceptic 'logic' - not to mention strawclutching of mega proportions IMO
The 'straw clutching' of 'mega' proportions is those that hold onto abduction, without a shred of real evidence to support it.
However, you clearly love 'straw clutching'.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2015, 09:52:42 AM
if SY think... on the balance of probabilities....and I agree with them..that maddie was murdered then that rules out the parents and shows amaral to be wrong........and many on this forum to be wrong, including Stephen..
fine by me
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: stephen25000 on May 11, 2015, 09:54:45 AM
if SY think... on the balance of probabilities....and I agree with them..that maddie was murdered then that rules out the parents and shows amaral to be wrong........and many on this forum to be wrong, including Stephen..
fine by me
You son't seemed to have quite grasped the situation dave.
The type of crime is unknown.
Until the nature of a crime is established, you don't rule out potential suspects.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 10:09:43 AM
Nor, in my opinion does murder mean 1st degree murder ( to use an Americanism), but would also include manslaughter.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alice Purjorick on May 11, 2015, 10:23:57 AM
You son't seemed to have quite grasped the situation dave.
The type of crime is unknown.
Until the nature of a crime is established, you don't rule out potential suspects.
But you do rule out people who you are completely satisfied (after examining all the evidence regarding the nature of all possible crimes) do not qualify as potential suspects for any of them. This is what SY have done in relation to the McCanns and their friends. SY have the evidence/ information and the means of establishing facts that we cannot possibly establish - as we are only in possession of some of the necessary info required to do that. And even the info we do have (files) cannot be relied on to be accurate.
SY police officers are the experts and have all the info. We are amateurs and have only some of the info. Therefore it's no contest IMO. I'll stick with the experts. My personal opinion of the McCanns as parents doesn't come into it. Unfortunately Stephen IMO - your opinion of the McCanns rules everything.
(oops sorry I think I'm off topic -so won't post here again on this subject)
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 10:55:00 AM
But you do rule out people who you are completely satisfied (after examining all the evidence regarding the nature of all possible crimes) do not qualify as potential suspects for any of them. This is what SY have done in relation to the McCanns and their friends. SY have the evidence/ information and the means of establishing facts that we cannot possibly establish - as we are only in possession of some of the necessary info required to do that. And even the info we do have (files) cannot be relied on to be accurate.
SY police officers are the experts and have all the info. We are amateurs and have only some of the info. Therefore it's no contest IMO. I'll stick with the experts. My personal opinion of the McCanns as parents doesn't come into it. Unfortunately Stephen IMO - your opinion of the McCanns rules everything.
(oops sorry I think I'm off topic -so won't post here again on this subject)
Completely illogical.
Until the crime is determined, you cannot rule out potential suspects.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Brietta on May 11, 2015, 10:59:13 AM
and how many more years of tax payers money will go down the drain ?
and some cases are never solved.
Don't know if you noticed or not ... if no-one bothers to seek a solution ... it is a certainty no solution will be found.
Your viewpoint that solving crime equates with pouring tax payers' money down the drain, is an interesting one.
Your eagerness to see Madeleine McCann's case abandoned does you little credit ... but since this conversation is way off topic and destined to be scrubbed (apologies mods) ... I will leave it there.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Carana on May 11, 2015, 11:01:47 AM
You son't seemed to have quite grasped the situation dave.
The type of crime is unknown.
Until the nature of a crime is established, you don't rule out potential suspects.
If press reports are correct, one of the recent arguidos no longer appears to be one... so how does that compute (if true)?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 11:15:05 AM
If true it would seem to indicate another dead line of inquiry, though I'm sure SY will find something to keep them in business as long as the money lasts.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 11:20:31 AM
if SY think... on the balance of probabilities....and I agree with them..that maddie was murdered then that rules out the parents and shows amaral to be wrong........and many on this forum to be wrong, including Stephen..
fine by me
If Madeleine was murdered it could have been by anyone, including the parents. How does the possibility of it being a murder rule them out?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 11:27:05 AM
murder by definition involves a degree of premeditation...SY mentioned murder.....that must rule out the parents
I disagree. Murder is a term used somewhat loosely by the police - something is described as a 'murder inquiry' until it has been determined otherwise. E.G. Claudia Lawrence.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: G-Unit on May 11, 2015, 11:45:19 AM
If true it would seem to indicate another dead line of inquiry, though I'm sure SY will find something to keep them in business as long as the money lasts.
You talk as if the Met is a company, dependent for its existence on investigations commissioned and paid for by the private sector!
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 05:53:43 PM
I was thinking specifically of Operation Grange, which is funded by a grant entirely separate from normal Met funding. When the funding dries up, so will the operation, unless the detectives solve Madeleine's disappearance before then.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
I was thinking specifically of Operation Grange, which is funded by a grant entirely separate from normal Met funding. When the funding dries up, so will the operation, unless the detectives solve Madeleine's disappearance before then.
So what, it doesn't follow that all those involved in Op Grange will be made redundant does it? So, why do you think they are spinning out the investigation in order to "keep them in business"?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 06:19:49 PM
While the detectives are being paid by Operation Grange, they are costing the Met nothing. Some of the team probably will be 'disposed off' when the operation winds down - retirement, natural wastage, whatever.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2015, 06:24:25 PM
While the detectives are being paid by Operation Grange, they are costing the Met nothing. Some of the team probably will be 'disposed off' when the operation winds down - retirement, natural wastage, whatever.
So is it your contention that Operation Grange is just a money-spinning farce, designed solely to keep a few old codgers busy until they're put out to pasture, no results required?
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 06:28:49 PM
So is it your contention that Operation Grange is just a money-spinning farce, designed solely to keep a few old codgers busy until they're put out to pasture, no results required?
Yeah, probably. I don't suppose they care too much about the old codgers, but no result will certainly be in order.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2015, 06:38:10 PM
While the detectives are being paid by Operation Grange, they are costing the Met nothing. Some of the team probably will be 'disposed off' when the operation winds down - retirement, natural wastage, whatever.
Quite possibly.
I doubt that all of the current staff assigned to the case work exclusively on the Madeleine case. Depending on their respective skills and time, they may be more in demand during some periods of high activity rather than at other times.
For example, if a priority in the early days was to to get some kind of HOLMES system organised or harmonised, then trained staff may well have worked full-time until the work was mainly done, with just updates to do when necessary. I doubt that those qualified staff would be sitting twiddling their thumbs while LOR negotiations are making excruciatingly slow progress through the wheels of bureaucracy. They may even be involved in training juniors for when they retire or simply be working on other cases while remaining on call when needed for Op Grange.
My impression that the moans about so many staff on Op Grange to the exclusion of other work was a bit of political spin by the police union in the run-up to the elections to point out their general grievances, which is to be expected.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 06:40:01 PM
Cameron decreed it - don't ask me why as I have no idea.
so, in your opinion the Prime Minister ordered an investigation costing millions of pounds which was not results driven, but simply to keep a few old detectives in employ. OK, if you say so. *&*%£
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 06:43:42 PM
so, in your opinion the Prime Minister ordered an investigation costing millions of pounds which was not results driven, but simply to keep a few old detectives in employ. OK, if you say so. *&*%£
Its a wise man who understands the motives of a politician.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2015, 08:49:46 PM
Its a wise man who understands the motives of a politician.
It's a fool who believes that the PM is involved in some sort of McCann based cover up.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 08:59:19 PM
Indeed it is. I think he just jumped on board because he thought it would be good PR. I don't supposed he considered or particularly cared about the outcome.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Alfred R Jones on May 11, 2015, 09:02:20 PM
Indeed it is. I think he just jumped on board because he thought it would be good PR. I don't supposed he considered or particularly cared about the outcome.
I'm sure he could have spent ten million quid on more effective PR. When people read about Op. Grange and how much it is costing I don't suppose many are saying "bless David Cameron for being such a great geezer".
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Mr Gray on May 11, 2015, 09:03:52 PM
Indeed it is. I think he just jumped on board because he thought it would be good PR. I don't supposed he considered or particularly cared about the outcome.
how can it be good PR when according to Stephen the mccanns have very little support in the country
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 09:05:07 PM
What's 10 million? - a mere drop in the ocean of government expenditure. Most people don't really care.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: jassi on May 11, 2015, 09:06:02 PM
More is spent cleaning up chewing gum apparently. Most people probably don't even know that.
Why should all this money be spent on one missing kid when so many others are ignored? Add to this the fact that the McCanns have the funds to do their own searching whilst others don't have those resources.
Silly me, I forgot about the need to employ expensive lawyers.
Title: Re: CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.
Post by: Brietta on May 12, 2015, 04:45:20 PM
Why should all this money be spent on one missing kid when so many others are ignored? Add to this the fact that the McCanns have the funds to do their own searching whilst others don't have those resources.
Silly me, I forgot about the need to employ expensive lawyers.