Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Eleanor]

Funny how police forces around the world would spend so much and so many years on studying training methods if that's all it takes.

Dogs out walking often do.  Or didn't you know that?

[Gertrude]

You are totally exaggerating and misrepresenting what I have written.  I am at a loss as to why you are so incredibly defensive of Stockham however. From the court testimony
“Stockham testified that Grime was a recognized expert in the field of animal behavior in the United Kingdom who worked with and trained Morse and Keela. Stockham tested Grime and Morse in 2011. On one occasion, Morse gave a “nonproductive response” when he “barked in a blank room.” No samples were in the room, but Stockham could not exclude the possibility that trace matter was there.

According to Stockham, no instruments can detect and confirm the presence of human remains. It is not clear whether a dog reacts to single compound or a combination of compounds in a decomposing body. Therefore, nonproductive responses cannot be verified as correct or incorrect. Instead, Stockham assumes that the result is correct if the dog has routinely passed testing before and after the incident. Grime admitted that there was no scientific testing method that could corroborate Morse's responses in this case.”

 No I don't feel I am exaggerating. The court was satisfied that Grime and his dogs were of a sufficient standard to be deemed evidence and they were satisfied with Stockhams status as an expert in assessing Grime and his dogs.   Why would I have to have a personal connection to Stockham to point out that a forensic scientist with a long and influential career was not likely to become so biased to make his testimony of no value? 

 It's quite funny actually, I sure as 'ell have never been to America or met anyone from the FBI 

   

[Gertrude]

Dogs out walking often do.  Or didn't you know that?

Yes I knew dogs can smell bodies, thanks.  If it was as simple as the police using any old untrained dog they wouldn't bother with the great expense of training them and testing them in programmes that last for years would they?

[ShiningInLuz]

I provided a link to the court of Michigan case, which included this;

"At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham's protocol called for regular single-and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham's program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime's dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim's death, or years after a victim's burial."

 Rex Stockham's scientific papers are available that detail his methods. His qualifications are known to the court, so obviously his statement did mean something to the court. The fact he oversaw the FBI's canine programme and instigated the training methods for the FBI as a whole in the US, obviously carries a bit of weight.

" A New Breed
Scent Dog Program Gets Results

Human scent evidence has been used in federal court before.  However, the federal court judge’s ruling sets an important precedent—and by extension acknowledges the Bureau’s efforts to promote the highest standards when scent dogs are used in investigations.

The use of dogs by law enforcement is nothing new. Bloodhounds have traditionally been called upon to pick up the trail of fugitives and missing persons. FBI police and our special agent bomb technicians use dogs trained to sniff for explosives, and we have victim recovery dogs trained specifically to seek out the smell of blood and decomposing bodies.

But our Human Scent Evidence Team (HSET), established in 2002 and now a full-time program in the ERTU, is something of a new breed. After they are trained and certified—a process that can take two to three years—HSET dogs can help point investigators in the right direction when time and resources may be in limited supply—and their efforts may later be scrutinized in the courtroom.

Here’s how the program works:

At the crime scene, in addition to collecting fingerprints, DNA, and other evidence, ERT technicians collect scents by using a trace evidence vacuum similar to those used for collection of hair and fibers. Human scent traces, which can be obtained from almost any object, are vacuumed onto a sterile surgical dressing and placed in an airtight glass jar (they can be stored that way for an extended period of time).
Dogs are trained to smell the collected scent by sniffing the scent pad and indicating either a scent match or a non-match. If there is a matching trail of human odor, the dog will follow an invisible “odor highway” in the same way humans might recognize streets, roadways, and intersections.
In most cases handlers know nothing about the cases they are called in to work. They are simply given a scent pad and asked to follow a trail if one is found.
Stockham is working with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to establish a uniform set of training and certification standards that would apply to all scent dogs used in investigations.

 “Our goal is to promote a science-driven program with the highest standards of training, certification, and professionalism,” Stockham explained. “It’s part of the FBI Laboratory’s commitment to provide exceptional forensic science services to our federal, state, local, and international law enforcement partners.”

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2010/december/scent_122310/scent_122310

...

I hadn't seen this information before.  Many 

[Eleanor]

Yes I knew dogs can smell bodies, thanks.  If it was as simple as the police using any old untrained dog they wouldn't bother with the great expense of training them and testing them in programmes that last for years would they?

Do they?  It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.  No one knows what The Standards  actually are.  Grime said that he trained his dogs to his own standards, but he never said what precisely.

I mean, let's all do our own thing.

Personally, I don't care.  But if I ever saw a case of grandstanding then that was it.

[Brietta]

Snip

Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs’ responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.

http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2014/111314/58542.pdf

[Gertrude]

Do they?  It all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.  No one knows what The Standards  actually are.  Grime said that he trained his dogs to his own standards, but he never said what precisely.

I mean, let's all do our own thing.

Personally, I don't care.  But if I ever saw a case of grandstanding then that was it.

 There were no standards but someone who worked for years establishing standards in America and was on government boards in the US said Grime and his methods were reliable.

[Gertrude]

Snip

Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs’ responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.

http://www.michbar.org/file/opinions/appeals/2014/111314/58542.pdf

Yes I posted that earlier. The court were satisfied his training and methods were sufficient none the less. In the Bianca Jones case there was strong circumstancial evidence that her father hit her until she died. Grime and his dogs identified her belongings ( car seat, blanket that was covering her face)  in a building full of other items.  His dog also alerted to the correct car. Coincidence?. Another toss of the coin, random success for Grime?

 IMO the dogs could be used in the McCann case on the same terms, supporting other evidence.

[Eleanor]

There were no standards but someone who worked for years establishing standards in America and was on government boards in the US said Grime and his methods were reliable.

Who was that then?

No, sorry, I don't really care.  The McCanns are never going to be even arrested.  So much for Dog Alerts.

[Eleanor]

Yes I posted that earlier. The court were satisfied his training and methods were sufficient none the less. In the Bianca Jones case there was strong circumstancial evidence that her father hit her until she died. Grime and his dogs identified her belongings ( car seat, blanket that was covering her face)  in a building full of other items.  His dog also alerted to the correct car. Coincidence?. Another toss of the coin, random success for Grime?

 IMO the dogs could be used in the McCann case on the same terms, supporting other evidence.

Exactly.  No Terms at all.

[Gertrude]

Exactly.  No Terms at all.

Please explain how that equates to 'no terms at all'?  There was stronger circumstantial evidence in the Bianca Jones case yes, but there isn't a complete lack of it in the McCann case. Stronger evidence could have been collected, we have no running commentary from the Pj or SY.

[Eleanor]

Please explain how that equates to 'no terms at all'?  There was stronger circumstantial evidence in the Bianca Jones case yes, but there isn't a complete lack of it in the McCann case. Stronger evidence could have been collected, we have no running commentary from the Pj or SY.

No Evidence was collected in The McCann Case.  And I am not awfully happy about the evidence in The Bianca Jones case.

[Mr Gray]

No I don't feel I am exaggerating. The court was satisfied that Grime and his dogs were of a sufficient standard to be deemed evidence and they were satisfied with Stockhams status as an expert in assessing Grime and his dogs.   Why would I have to have a personal connection to Stockham to point out that a forensic scientist with a long and influential career was not likely to become so biased to make his testimony of no value? 

 It's quite funny actually, I sure as 'ell have never been to America or met anyone from the FBI 

 

We don't know how the dogs were tested... We don't know how reliable those tests were... We don't know if Stockham introduced double blind testing... We don't know what he meant by 90 % accurate.... Experts witnesses make claims that impress judges who allow the evidence... It does not mean the evidence is reliable... Judges are not normally scientifically trained

[Robittybob1]

Yes, I’m well aware of all that thanks and was not referring to him but to those who are involved in tests which involve their own dogs, clearly there is a conflict of interests there, if not please explain why not.

The dogs are trained daily but tested independently less often.

[Vertigo Swirl]

No I don't feel I am exaggerating. The court was satisfied that Grime and his dogs were of a sufficient standard to be deemed evidence and they were satisfied with Stockhams status as an expert in assessing Grime and his dogs.   Why would I have to have a personal connection to Stockham to point out that a forensic scientist with a long and influential career was not likely to become so biased to make his testimony of no value? 

 It's quite funny actually, I sure as 'ell have never been to America or met anyone from the FBI 

 

It was the extreme defensiveness of your replies to my perfectly (IMO) reasonable posts I was referring to.  I did not say any of the things you earlier attributed to me either.