Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[pathfinder73]

Some good reasoning there.

And if she died in the apartment in daytime hours how are you going to remove the body without being noticed by many witnesses e.g. carrying a big black bag? There are less witnesses about in the dark as proven by witness statements that night.

[Mr Gray]

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

In the states reasonable suspicion is grounds to search a car for instance...probable cause is reason to arrest

[Robittybob1]

And if she died in the apartment in daytime hours how are you going to remove the body without being noticed by many witnesses e.g. carrying a big black bag? There are less witnesses about in the dark as proven by witness statements that night.

Are you just limiting the time to after 5:30 PM?

[pathfinder73]

Are you just limiting the time to after 5:30 PM?

No I'm talking about the death hypothesis happening in the daytime regardless of the exact time. How to remove a body with witnesses about? Do you remove immediately or wait until it's dark and safer with far less witnesses about?

[Alice Purjorick]

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

One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs"  with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.

* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.

[Robittybob1]

One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs"  with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.

* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.

It would be likely to be similar.

[Brietta]

One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs"  with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.

* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.

It is all in the training.

Train a dog on a specific scent and it will alert to that scent whether drugs ~ explosives ~ dead or live human bodies.

[Mr Gray]

One then has to decide whether or not a test devised for "explosive and drug sniffing dogs" may be extrapolated* straight across into "cadaver scenting dogs"  with no need for further observation/modification/results of behaviour on the medium under consideration.

* inference of the unknown from the known assuming that existing similar methods will remain applicable.

what the test tells us is that dogs who are trained to alert to a scent IN THIS STUDY gave false alerts when the target scent was not present ...but the handler thought it was....at the very least it raises doubts about alerts in the field...so the dogs in the mccann case alerted in a place where the handler thought it may be present....


there would need to be more tests to see how significant this finding was but it certainly raises questions about the reliability of the alerts

what is also of interest is that this study has not been used to challenge the admission of cadaver dog evidence...it certainly should be

[Brietta]

No I'm talking about the death hypothesis happening in the daytime regardless of the exact time. How to remove a body with witnesses about? Do you remove immediately or wait until it's dark and safer with far less witnesses about?

The Portuguese prosecutors did give the conundrum some serious thought and reached logical conclusions ... unfortunately largely ignored because they don't fit with all the baggage of blinding personal prejudice carried for some unfathomable reason by some.

Snip
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so.
Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-pjs-final-report-the-archiving-dispatch/#adi4

[G-Unit]

The results of a study of one set of handlers and dogs apply only to those handlers and those dogs. Unlike inanimate objects living creatures are all different. Even the same creatures change from day to day. Different results could have been obtained by repeating the study a week later. It's very difficult to study living beings and get consistent results.

[G-Unit]

The Portuguese prosecutors did give the conundrum some serious thought and reached logical conclusions ... unfortunately largely ignored because they don't fit with all the baggage of blinding personal prejudice carried for some unfathomable reason by some.

Snip
Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child’s death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so.
Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/the-pjs-final-report-the-archiving-dispatch/#adi4

Did the prosecutor get his information from the McCanns and their friends?

[Mr Gray]

The results of a study of one set of handlers and dogs apply only to those handlers and those dogs. Unlike inanimate objects living creatures are all different. Even the same creatures change from day to day. Different results could have been obtained by repeating the study a week later. It's very difficult to study living beings and get consistent results.

look at my post 862....the study raises questions about all dogs  .....questions that can only be answerred by scientific tests...until thos equestions are answerred any claim that eddies alerts in 5a are 90 % accurate have no evidence to support them

[Brietta]

Did the prosecutor get his information from the McCanns and their friends?

Do you suspect the Portuguese prosecutors were "init" too?

The Policia Judiciaria having toiled to present a report for the perusal of the Prosecutors exhaustively detailing all aspects of the investigation from start to where they were I rather imagine the prosecutors may have taken the time to peruse that in their decision making.

Why would you think it would be otherwise?

[Alice Purjorick]

Lots of gross assumptions with no substantiating evidence.
Or in my world guesswork.

[Alice Purjorick]

what the test tells us is that dogs who are trained to alert to a scent IN THIS STUDY gave false alerts when the target scent was not present ...but the handler thought it was....at the very least it raises doubts about alerts in the field...so the dogs in the mccann case alerted in a place where the handler thought it may be present....


there would need to be more tests to see how significant this finding was but it certainly raises questions about the reliability of the alerts

what is also of interest is that this study has not been used to challenge the admission of cadaver dog evidence...it certainly should be

The original study was in 2011 with another article in 2017 which mostly seem to have bombed except in one media outlet namely NPR.