Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Miss Taken Identity]

it is if it reaches scientific standards....anectdotal evidence certainly doesnt and shows how little they understand science

Dogs don't do science? ok. how about Quantum Physics? Trig?

Most industries are self assessing/ have regulatory bodies to impose governance. Just look at the telecoms industry or the newspaper industry, enegry industry. who do you think OFCOM and OFGEM are made up from exactly?

[G-Unit]

Judges aren’t able to test the reliability and ability of dogs, they can only assess evidence supplied to them by individuals who claim to have put them through rigorous, unbiased testing, individuals who mostly seem to be closely involved in the cadaver dog industry themselves.

You seem to be deliberately misunderstand the judge's role and the fact that most 'experts' are peer reviewed. 

[Mr Gray]

Dogs don't do science? ok. how about Quantum Physics? Trig?

Most industries are self assessing/ have regulatory bodies to impose governance. Just look at the telecoms industry or the newspaper industry, enegry industry. who do you think OFCOM and OFGEM are made up from exactly?

so what is the regulatory body covering cadaver dogs...there isnt one ..its all anectdotal....and therefore not scientific

[Brietta]

I would expect the dogs to be very good in tests at finding  contaminated samples.... Have they ever been tested where there are no samples present but the handler is unaware .


Just because the dogs can detect cadaverine does not mean every alert is to cadaverine

Apparently it is called "negative searching".
In my opinion it illustrates what should be a very important part of the training for cadaver dogs who are on occasion asked to respond to residual scent.
Knowing how accurately a dog reacts to substances in training surely must involve the element of knowing when there is nothing there for the dog to react to and his resulting behaviour.

Snip

Learning From SAR Trainers
One concept that I found very interesting was an article by Jonni Joyce (once a law enforcement handler but now specializing in training SAR teams) on “Negative Searching.” Jonni explains that negative searching means devoting training time to searching areas where none of the target scent (scent the dog is trained to indicate on) exists.

Negative searching helps the dog to understand that not every search will result in a find, and extends the dog’s “nose time,” or the amount of time the dog will search effectively without burning out or giving false alerts out of frustration when they don’t encounter the target scent when they think they should.
____________________________________________________________________________

Most detector dog handlers, by the time they are doing intermediate or advanced searches, build some negative
searching time in by searching an area without a hide (substance they are training for) before they go to the area of the hide.
However, many always end the session with a reward at the hide and put the dog up.
The point of Jonni’s article was that handlers should search negative areas before and after they find a hide and, over time, extend the amount of negative searching to extend the amount of time the dog will work effectively without a find.
Handlers should also spend time taking the dog out to search areas with no hides or target scent whatsoever and then reward the dog with play for searching and put the dog back so that the dog doesn’t expect a find every time it is taken out of the vehicle.
https://www.emainehosting.com/mesard/Articles/Negative%20Searching.pdf

[Mr Gray]

Apparently it is called "negative searching".
In my opinion it illustrates what should be a very important part of the training for cadaver dogs who are on occasion asked to respond to residual scent.
Knowing how accurately a dog reacts to substances in training surely must involve the element of knowing when there is nothing there for the dog to react to and his resulting behaviour.

Snip

Learning From SAR Trainers
One concept that I found very interesting was an article by Jonni Joyce (once a law enforcement handler but now specializing in training SAR teams) on “Negative Searching.” Jonni explains that negative searching means devoting training time to searching areas where none of the target scent (scent the dog is trained to indicate on) exists.

Negative searching helps the dog to understand that not every search will result in a find, and extends the dog’s “nose time,” or the amount of time the dog will search effectively without burning out or giving false alerts out of frustration when they don’t encounter the target scent when they think they should.
____________________________________________________________________________

Most detector dog handlers, by the time they are doing intermediate or advanced searches, build some negative
searching time in by searching an area without a hide (substance they are training for) before they go to the area of the hide.
However, many always end the session with a reward at the hide and put the dog up.
The point of Jonni’s article was that handlers should search negative areas before and after they find a hide and, over time, extend the amount of negative searching to extend the amount of time the dog will work effectively without a find.
Handlers should also spend time taking the dog out to search areas with no hides or target scent whatsoever and then reward the dog with play for searching and put the dog back so that the dog doesn’t expect a find every time it is taken out of the vehicle.
https://www.emainehosting.com/mesard/Articles/Negative%20Searching.pdf

this is precisely what I think may have happened in Luz....given the report by the pj that the dog originally did not alert but later alerted to places it had previoulsy ignored

[Brietta]

You seem to be deliberately misunderstand the judge's role and the fact that most 'experts' are peer reviewed.

In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan
Snip
In most of the rest of the world, expert witnesses are selected by judges and are meant to be neutral and independent. Many foreign lawyers have long questioned the American practice of allowing the parties to present testimony from experts they have chosen and paid.

The European judge who visits the United States experiences “something bordering on disbelief when he discovers that we extend the sphere of partisan control to the selection and preparation of experts,” John H. Langbein, a law professor at Yale, wrote in a classic article in The University of Chicago Law Review more than 20 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html

[G-Unit]

Apparently it is called "negative searching".
In my opinion it illustrates what should be a very important part of the training for cadaver dogs who are on occasion asked to respond to residual scent.
Knowing how accurately a dog reacts to substances in training surely must involve the element of knowing when there is nothing there for the dog to react to and his resulting behaviour.

Snip

Learning From SAR Trainers
One concept that I found very interesting was an article by Jonni Joyce (once a law enforcement handler but now specializing in training SAR teams) on “Negative Searching.” Jonni explains that negative searching means devoting training time to searching areas where none of the target scent (scent the dog is trained to indicate on) exists.

Negative searching helps the dog to understand that not every search will result in a find, and extends the dog’s “nose time,” or the amount of time the dog will search effectively without burning out or giving false alerts out of frustration when they don’t encounter the target scent when they think they should.
____________________________________________________________________________

Most detector dog handlers, by the time they are doing intermediate or advanced searches, build some negative
searching time in by searching an area without a hide (substance they are training for) before they go to the area of the hide.
However, many always end the session with a reward at the hide and put the dog up.
The point of Jonni’s article was that handlers should search negative areas before and after they find a hide and, over time, extend the amount of negative searching to extend the amount of time the dog will work effectively without a find.
Handlers should also spend time taking the dog out to search areas with no hides or target scent whatsoever and then reward the dog with play for searching and put the dog back so that the dog doesn’t expect a find every time it is taken out of the vehicle.
https://www.emainehosting.com/mesard/Articles/Negative%20Searching.pdf

The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.

[Mr Gray]

You seem to be deliberately misunderstand the judge's role and the fact that most 'experts' are peer reviewed.

peer reviewed by whom...one of their colleagues

[Brietta]

this is precisely what I think may have happened in Luz....given the report by the pj that the dog originally did not alert but later alerted to places it had previoulsy ignored

What interested me was that as a result of "negative search training" "the dog doesn’t expect a find every time it is taken out of the vehicle".  Having watched the video of Eddie running along the passageway and bursting into apartment 5A it is my opinion that was a dog expecting to do what it was trained to do.

Of interest also was reference to the training of SAR dogs ... which indicated that they can indeed follow a trail some days old.

[Brietta]

The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.

Indeed.  We have seen the video of him not alerting in the garage or the other apartments in block 5 as well as him not alerting to clothing in the rented villa but later to the same clothing laid out on the floor in the gymnasium.

I have to admit it all really did make a huge impression on me.

[Brietta]

The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.

Forgot to mention ... we never did see any video of the search of Murat's villa.  I wonder if that had anything to do with the fact that as an arguido he was entitled to have his lawyer present?

Wasn't there also something about the hire car Murat was using not being present for the garage searches?

[Vertigo Swirl]

In U.S., Expert Witnesses Are Partisan
Snip
In most of the rest of the world, expert witnesses are selected by judges and are meant to be neutral and independent. Many foreign lawyers have long questioned the American practice of allowing the parties to present testimony from experts they have chosen and paid.

The European judge who visits the United States experiences “something bordering on disbelief when he discovers that we extend the sphere of partisan control to the selection and preparation of experts,” John H. Langbein, a law professor at Yale, wrote in a classic article in The University of Chicago Law Review more than 20 years ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/us/12experts.html

Nice one. 

[Mr Gray]

The fact that Eddie didn't alert in Murat's house or any of the other apartments except 5A suggests that he understood very well that not every search required an alert.

I think it's a fact that Eddie did not alert in 5a... Same as in the other apartments.. But was given extra time only in 5a

[G-Unit]

peer reviewed by whom...one of their colleagues

Peers are those who have the knowledge to judge. They may or may not be colleagues.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Peers are those who have the knowledge to judge. They may or may not be colleagues.

Best if its not a colleague when in a court of law IMO.