Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[G-Unit]

Exactly!!    What use would that have been when searching for a cadaver out doors?    Grime couldn't have found the cadaver and hidden it in a cupboard then could he?

Do you have any criticism of Grime's methods by his peers? Has anyone with knowledge of training and deploying cadaver dogs criticised his methods? That would carry far more weight than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.

[Lace]

Do you have any criticism of Grime's methods by his peers? Has anyone with knowledge of training and deploying cadaver dogs criticised his methods? That would carry far more weight than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.

Well how do you suppose Grimes methods would work if Eddie was searching for a cadaver out doors?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you have any criticism of Grime's methods by his peers? Has anyone with knowledge of training and deploying cadaver dogs criticised his methods? That would carry far more weight than the opinions of people who know nothing about the subject.

IMO it's a close-knit exclusive little club, the world of free-lance cadaver dog handlers (look at the links between Grime and Stockham for example), and it wouldn't really do for one lot to cast aspersions on the other as it would risk exposing the whole independent cadaver dog business to unwanted third party scrutiny and testing.  IMO. 

[Robittybob1]

IMO it's a close-knit exclusive little club, the world of free-lance cadaver dog handlers (look at the links between Grime and Stockham for example), and it wouldn't really do for one lot to cast aspersions on the other as it would risk exposing the whole independent cadaver dog business to unwanted third party scrutiny and testing.  IMO.

That is surprising that you have that opinion.

[G-Unit]

Well how do you suppose Grimes methods would work if Eddie was searching for a cadaver out doors?

I have never given an opinion on Grime's methods because I have no idea whether they were good or bad. I can only judge him and his dogs by looking at the evidence that exists. There is no evidence to support people's negative opinions. There is evidence that Grime was very well regarded by the UK police and, later, by the FBI.

[Lace]

I have never given an opinion on Grime's methods because I have no idea whether they were good or bad. I can only judge him and his dogs by looking at the evidence that exists. There is no evidence to support people's negative opinions. There is evidence that Grime was very well regarded by the UK police and, later, by the FBI.

Grime wasn't very well regarded by Jersey have you read the financial report?  You need to scroll down to where they speak about Grime -

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf

[The General]

Dogs cannot be guaranteed to be 100% fail safe ... whatever they may be trained to sniff out ...

But do they need to be? Why is it always churned out...100%, fail safe? Ground penetrating radar isn't an exact science; the results need to be interpreted - the scan doesn't show a neatly packaged corpse under some soil, it shows subtle, nuanced changes in strata. Admittedly things have moved on, but it's not your panacea of 100%.
The dogs give an indication, an assistance to the investigation or a search; it's also not 100% and  until we develop the technology to hold a conversation with a dog, assuming that dog has developed a level of comparable sentience, (preferably in human language, as opposed to dog) it will always be that way.
Look how far DNA has developed in the last 30 years, we're prosecuting way more now due to these advances, but it doesn't mean that we weren't using embryonic DNA analysis to catch bad guys 30 years ago - what percentage of 'fail safe' do you reckon that was?
If evidence is produced at a trial that proves 'beyond reasonable doubt', then the weight of all evidence gathered, including specialist investigation techniques, is achieving the objective. It might be that, actually, in a trial, the evidence of an EVRD or CSI dog was a mere footnote; another layer to weigh against or for. It might be dismissed out of hand, or argued by a skilled barrister that it's inadmissable or irrelevant because it's 'not 100%'.
But why wouldn't you use it? It's a relatively common place, widely used investigation tool.

Putting myself in the McCann's shoes as best as one can without knowing the multitudinous factors imposing opun them at the time, if I was told that these dogs were scenting cadaver / blood in the apartment my little girl went missing from, I wouldn't be researching and castigating the dogs, I'd be absolutely hellbent on finding out what in the name of Zeus' cat is going on - because essentially it means that it's now way more likely something terrible happened to her prior to going missing. I'd be beside myself and I would be imploring them to do it again, extend the search, get more of those dogs, follow the trail. Anything.

[Vertigo Swirl]

But do they need to be? Why is it always churned out...100%, fail safe? Ground penetrating radar isn't an exact science; the results need to be interpreted - the scan doesn't show a neatly packaged corpse under some soil, it shows subtle, nuanced changes in strata. Admittedly things have moved on, but it's not your panacea of 100%.
The dogs give an indication, an assistance to the investigation or a search; it's also not 100% and  until we develop the technology to hold a conversation with a dog, assuming that dog has developed a level of comparable sentience, (preferably in human language, as opposed to dog) it will always be that way.
Look how far DNA has developed in the last 30 years, we're prosecuting way more now due to these advances, but it doesn't mean that we weren't using embryonic DNA analysis to catch bad guys 30 years ago - what percentage of 'fail safe' do you reckon that was?
If evidence is produced at a trial that proves 'beyond reasonable doubt', then the weight of all evidence gathered, including specialist investigation techniques, is achieving the objective. It might be that, actually, in a trial, the evidence of an EVRD or CSI dog was a mere footnote; another layer to weigh against or for. It might be dismissed out of hand, or argued by a skilled barrister that it's inadmissable or irrelevant because it's 'not 100%'.
But why wouldn't you use it? It's a relatively common place, widely used investigation tool.

Putting myself in the McCann's shoes as best as one can without knowing the multitudinous factors imposing opun them at the time, if I was told that these dogs were scenting cadaver / blood in the apartment my little girl went missing from, I wouldn't be researching and castigating the dogs, I'd be absolutely hellbent on finding out what in the name of Zeus' cat is going on - because essentially it means that it's now way more likely something terrible happened to her prior to going missing. I'd be beside myself and I would be imploring them to do it again, extend the search, get more of those dogs, follow the trail. Anything.

Would you?  Really?  When they alerted to your own car an possessions months after her disappearance?  Oh, ok then.

[G-Unit]

Grime wasn't very well regarded by Jersey have you read the financial report?  You need to scroll down to where they speak about Grime -

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf

A report by BDO Alto, a firm of accountants, I notice.

They question the choice of Grime who was chosen from a list offered by the NPIA, it seems, despite him no longer being a serving police officer. The accountants were confused as to why Grime was chosen because they assumed that the Jersey police were a UK police force;

We consider it safe to suggest that references to the UK here are intended to include the States of Jersey Police (page 37)

They thought it would have been cheaper to use serving handlers and dogs, but as far as I know the Jersey police are not a UK police force, so serving handlers and dogs would have had to have been be paid for too. Would it have been cheaper? I don't know.

Although the cost and duration of Grime's involvement is criticised, that is the responsibility of those who employed him. If he was overpaid, paid for days he wasn't working and put up in an hotel that was too expensive that's all down to the employers, imo, not the person employed.

[G-Unit]

Would you?  Really?  When they alerted to your own car an possessions months after her disappearance?  Oh, ok then.

To me their response was, in effect, an ad hominem attack on the dogs.

[The General]

Would you?  Really?  When they alerted to your own car an possessions months after her disappearance?  Oh, ok then.

Unless I had something to hide, absolutely.
Otherwise I'd be disparaging those incredibly unreliable dogs to anyone who cared to listen.

[Alice Purjorick]

Grime wasn't very well regarded by Jersey have you read the financial report?  You need to scroll down to where they speak about Grime -

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf

I think you will find that the thrust of pages 34-38 is a reflection on piss poor project management by SOJP rather than Mr Grime's adequacy.
Putting it simplistically, oh boy I know I am going to regret this, if you wish to undo an M24 bolt you use an M24 spanner. You don't buy an M16 shifter or a complete bloody toolkit and hope for the best. Well if you have your wits about you you don't.
Refer to the bit where the BDO report writers are astounded that SOJP only considered Mr Grime's company.
Good practice would demand at least two and preferably four bidders.

[Vertigo Swirl]

To me their response was, in effect, an ad hominem attack on the dogs.

of course it was, the dog alerts were an "ad hominem" attack on them!

[Vertigo Swirl]

Unless I had something to hide, absolutely.
Otherwise I'd be disparaging those incredibly unreliable dogs to anyone who cared to listen.

Ermmm...isn't that what Gerry has been criticised for doing, for the last 11 years?

[G-Unit]

of course it was, the dog alerts were an "ad hominem" attack on them!

The dog's alerts were an attack on no-one. They were a response to the smell of the substances the dogs were trained to find.