Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Angelo222]

You seem to be saying that Eddie is not really very reliable.

In finding only cadavers, no.

[Angelo222]

In his report dated 23 July he recommended searching the apartment;

McCann's Apartment.

The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

The search was carried out on 31st July, and the EVRD did alert in the apartment. Harrison produces another report dated 8th August, but now he seems to be contradicting himself;

I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

So before 5A was searched, an alert might suggest that a body had been present then removed. After it was searched and the dog alerted he seems to be changing his mind.

If cadaver scent was found in 5a it could only have got there by secondary transfer given that it takes several hours for this scent to develop after death. The only other explanation was that a body had lain in 5a for several hours which was not impossible but also unlikely imo.

[G-Unit]

In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'.

Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.

The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality   known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."

These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
http://www.policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf

[Mr Gray]

In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'.

Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.

The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality   known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."

These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
http://www.policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf

Criminal statistics are enough fir reasonable suspicion.... That's, why parents, are always suspects

[Angelo222]

The widely conflicting accounts by Kate McCann and David Payne relating to the apartment visit a matter of hours before Maddie disappeared was picked up by Amaral as being suspicious.  How could two professional doctors fail to explain such an encounter in simple terms unless of course there was more to it?

These are highly significant timings imo.

5.30pm  Last time Maddie was seen in public.
6.30pm. David Payne calls at 5a.
8.30pm. Parents turn up at tapas restaurant.
9.05pm. Gerry McCann returns to 5a.
9.15pm. Man seen carrying child near 5a.
9.20pm. Gerry McCann returns to tapas restaurant.
10.00pm. Maddie discovered/reported missing.
10.05pm. Man seen carrying child in town near beach.

[Eleanor]

Well trained cadaver dogs like Eddie are reliable and will find what they are trained to find.  The problem arises when dogs like Eddie are trained and retrained on several substances. The only really reliable dog imo is one which is trained solely on cadavers. Training such a dog in the UK is prohibited by law so any dog trained to such a standard would have to go to specialised facilities in America and that would be uneconomic.

I have been thinking about this comment, which mirrors what I have long thought.  This was the basic problem with Eddie.  He knew what he was doing, but unfortunately no one else did, so he was racing around picking up on all sorts of things.

In my opinion Eddie was an experiment, without much thought for what could happen if several substances were present in the same place, and no usable forensics were present.

[Alice Purjorick]

If you read the articles posted by sunny Re Stockham this is exactly the scientific  testing he was, suggesting

Under the circumstances I am not surprised.
Devising a test whereby each variable can be modified in isolation would be "very interesting" in this instance.

[Brietta]

In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'.

Reasonable suspicion is defined as a "particularized and objective basis for suspected legal wrongdoing". In this case, the wrongdoing may be a suspect, a track or trail of a suspect or scent line up.

The dog alert is simply one indicator of wrongdoing. Now, the peace officer in charge of the case must develop other reasonable suspicion indicators to develop probable cause. "Probable cause exists when under the totality   known to the arresting officer; a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime."

These other reasonable suspicion indicators may be direct or circumstantial
evidence.
http://www.policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf

Eliminating Police Bias When Handling Drug-Sniffing Dogs
November 20, 2017
MARTIN KASTE

Seven years ago, a researcher named Lisa Lit published a study https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html  that she now calls "a real career-ender."

On the surface, the study tested the abilities of fourteen certified sniffer dogs to find hidden "targets." In reality, the dogs' human handlers were also under the magnifying glass. They were led to believe there were hidden target scents present, when in fact there were none. Nevertheless, the dogs "alerted" to the scents multiple times — especially in locations where researchers had indicated a scent was likely.

"I think the findings were a little surprising," Lit says. "I don't think the number of incorrect responses was what anybody was really anticipating out of this study."

Police dogs searching for drugs sometimes "alert" for them when they're not there. That raises questions about the influence of the dogs' handlers. As NPR learned, there is now an effort by some in the training community to eliminate the influence of their handlers' suspicions to make dog searches more fair.

Lit's study made headlines in the U.S. and abroad, as it seemed to question the impartiality of police K9 teams. In most states, an alert by a certified drug-sniffing dog gives police the right to search your car; some cops jokingly refer to the dogs as "probable cause on four legs." With this study, that probable cause looked shakier.

Dog trainers and handlers denounced the study and its methods, and Lit couldn't get their cooperation for further research. Dr. Cynthia Otto, another researcher who runs the Penn Vet Working Dog Center at the University of Pennsylvania, recalls the backlash.

"At the time it was extremely contentious, mostly because it felt like people were duped," Otto says. "That [the handlers] were kind of tricked into this and taken advantage of."

But now that some time has gone by, Otto says there are trainers and handlers who are willing to put those emotions behind them and look at the problem identified by the study: dogs are very good at reading humans.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite?t=1542457935206


Worth reading the full article in conjunction with the study.

[pathfinder73]

The widely conflicting accounts by Kate McCann and David Payne relating to the apartment visit a matter of hours before Maddie disappeared was picked up by Amaral as being suspicious.  How could two professional doctors fail to explain such an encounter in simple terms unless of course there was more to it?

These are highly significant timings imo.

5.30pm  Last time Maddie was seen in public.
6.30pm. David Payne calls at 5a.
8.30pm. Parents turn up at tapas restaurant.
9.05pm. Gerry McCann returns to 5a.
9.15pm. Man seen carrying child near 5a.
9.20pm. Gerry McCann returns to tapas restaurant.
10.00pm. Maddie discovered/reported missing.
10.05pm. Man seen carrying child in town near beach.

Any competent investigator would be investigating that visit because it's a complete mess of differing accounts! Holmes would have flagged that up long ago and anyone else with a brain! The visit was over 3 hours before the alarm was raised.

[Alice Purjorick]

NPR is a mission-driven, multimedia news organization and radio program producer

from the linked study:

“It is important to recognize that these findings do not mitigate the abilities of these handler/dog teams to perform successfully. Our data, together with our previous findings and those of other researchers, continue to emphasize that many cognitive factors can affect handlers, dogs and the handler-dog dyad. Further research is required to characterize these factors in order to optimize working dog and handler performance. Also importantly, the sensitivity of dogs to social cues as suggested by this study points to the potential to develop good models to study social behavior.”

[Mr Gray]

Eliminating Police Bias When Handling Drug-Sniffing Dogs
November 20, 2017
MARTIN KASTE

Seven years ago, a researcher named Lisa Lit published a study https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/20110223_drug_dogs.html  that she now calls "a real career-ender."

On the surface, the study tested the abilities of fourteen certified sniffer dogs to find hidden "targets." In reality, the dogs' human handlers were also under the magnifying glass. They were led to believe there were hidden target scents present, when in fact there were none. Nevertheless, the dogs "alerted" to the scents multiple times — especially in locations where researchers had indicated a scent was likely.

"I think the findings were a little surprising," Lit says. "I don't think the number of incorrect responses was what anybody was really anticipating out of this study."

Police dogs searching for drugs sometimes "alert" for them when they're not there. That raises questions about the influence of the dogs' handlers. As NPR learned, there is now an effort by some in the training community to eliminate the influence of their handlers' suspicions to make dog searches more fair.

Lit's study made headlines in the U.S. and abroad, as it seemed to question the impartiality of police K9 teams. In most states, an alert by a certified drug-sniffing dog gives police the right to search your car; some cops jokingly refer to the dogs as "probable cause on four legs." With this study, that probable cause looked shakier.

Dog trainers and handlers denounced the study and its methods, and Lit couldn't get their cooperation for further research. Dr. Cynthia Otto, another researcher who runs the Penn Vet Working Dog Center at the University of Pennsylvania, recalls the backlash.

"At the time it was extremely contentious, mostly because it felt like people were duped," Otto says. "That [the handlers] were kind of tricked into this and taken advantage of."

But now that some time has gone by, Otto says there are trainers and handlers who are willing to put those emotions behind them and look at the problem identified by the study: dogs are very good at reading humans.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563889510/preventing-police-bias-when-handling-dogs-that-bite?t=1542457935206


Worth reading the full article in conjunction with the study.

From the sane article...



The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present.



This is what I mean by more vigourous and varied testing

[Robittybob1]

If cadaver scent was found in 5a it could only have got there by secondary transfer given that it takes several hours for this scent to develop after death. The only other explanation was that a body had lain in 5a for several hours which was not impossible but also unlikely imo.

Some good reasoning there.

[Robittybob1]

Criminal statistics are enough fir reasonable suspicion.... That's, why parents, are always suspects

But they don't lock up a person just because they are a parent.

[Mr Gray]

But they don't lock up a person just because they are a parent.

Thats because statistics are intelligence...not evidence

[Robittybob1]

Thats because statistics are intelligence...not evidence

Remember G-unit said "In the US an alert by a cadaver dog is classed as 'reasonable suspicion'." 

Can they use stats as 'reasonable suspicion' to arrest someone?

"Reasonable Suspicion And Probable Cause: What’s The Difference?

.....
When Do the Police Need Probable Cause?
The police need only reasonable suspicion to stop an individual and question him or her, and they may search for weapons if they believe that the person is armed or presents an imminent threat of bodily harm. Probable cause must exist for the police to be able to arrest someone or obtain a search warrant."
https://www.taylorlawco.com/blog/reasonable-suspicion-and-probable-cause-what-s-the-difference.cfm