On another board, a regular poster here suggested not, and I recall that I was quite scathing of the suggestion -- on closer reflection, I believe, unjustly so.
This poster always understood that the point is made in the files, but her assertion was that it isn't made clearly that the dog will react to blood from living people as well as dead.
In that, I believe she's right:
Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.RD.) will search for and locate
human remains and body fluids including blood to very small samples in any
environment or terrain. The initial training of theasset is conducted using pig as the
subject matter for solid hides and human blood for fluid. The use of human remains
for the purpose of training dogs in the U.K. is not acceptable at this point in time. The
dog has however considerable experience inoperational recovery of human remains
and evidential forensic material and has trained exclusively using human remains in
the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I.
Martin Grime.
The training of a VRD provides an alert response using Ivan Pavlov's theory of producing a conditioned reflex, in this case barking, to the presence of detected decomposing human/pig flesh, bone, body fluid and blood.
Mark Harrison
These all seem to be to suggestions of association of blood with death.
But surely most remarkable of all is the (almost) complete absence of reference to blood in John Lowe's forensic report.
I say almost.
There is one.
This is it:
The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found.
They looked for blood and couldn't find it.
What were they looking for in the other results, all reacted to by Keela, the blood dog (a precondition of sending stuff to the laboratory in the first place)?
Above all else, why would Grime have been asked to clarify in his rogatory interview that Eddie does react to blood, lost, explicitly by living people if the point was clear in the first place?
