Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[Mr Gray]

Any thought of leaving human bodies lying around  decomposing in the name of science seems to be out of the question.  It would be easy to do if there were plenty of cadaver dogs and no one cared what happened to the deceased.

I doubt if yo can retest the same dog at the same spot week after week.    Each week you'd need a new dog.

You wouldn't need to and this is why I criticise the type of testing dog handlers carry out.

Take a piece of contaminated material and see if the dog alerts...keep it for 12 months then see if the dog still alerts
Obviously you would need several different types of material to show what happens in different circumstances

[Mr Gray]

The admissibility of this evidence needs to be seen in the light of the facts that polygraphs may also be accepted by some judges..

[Robittybob1]

You wouldn't need to and this is why I criticise the type of testing dog handlers carry out.

Take a piece of contaminated material and see if the dog alerts...keep it for 12 months then see if the dog still alerts
Obviously you would need several different types of material to show what happens in different circumstances

How do you get that contaminated material?  Can it be direct contact to a cadaver or is it odours that permeate through a plastic bag?  How decomposed was the cadaver?  How long was the contact? 

To get meaningful results  how would you know if an alert say at 1 year later was genuine? Would the likes of you still want some other verification that the alert was to residual odour?

[Mr Gray]

How do you get that contaminated material?  Can it be direct contact to a cadaver or is it odours that permeate through a plastic bag?  How decomposed was the cadaver?  How long was the contact? 

To get meaningful results  how would you know if an alert say at 1 year later was genuine? Would the likes of you still want some other verification that the alert was to residual odour?

to what odours are the dogs tested now? it could be a cloth that has been in contact with a cadaver. You wouldnt just do it with one sample but perhaps 20......then a test of 20 contminated and 20 not contaminated. To confirm the test would be repeated by different handlers.

As for satisfying poeple like me I presume you mean those with a scientific background who understand what scientific evidence is.

without proper scientific testing the alerts are simply opinion.

[Robittybob1]

to what odours are the dogs tested now? it could be a cloth that has been in contact with a cadaver. You wouldnt just do it with one sample but perhaps 20......then a test of 20 contminated and 20 not contaminated. To confirm the test would be repeated by different handlers.

As for satisfying poeple like me I presume you mean those with a scientific background who understand what scientific evidence is.

without proper scientific testing the alerts are simply opinion.

You could ruin a good dog with a test like that.  I'll ask my friend what she thinks.

[Mr Gray]

You could ruin a good dog with a test like that.  I'll ask my friend what she thinks.

I don't see how that would ruin a dog

[Robittybob1]

I don't see how that would ruin a dog

Well how many cadaver dogs are there in the UK?    How many dogs would get involved in the testing?

[Mr Gray]

Well how many cadaver dogs are there in the UK?    How many dogs would get involved in the testing?

It could simply be part of their normal testing ever six months...but if they are not tested they are not scientifically validated..
So does residual scent last one week or one year....no one can prove either way

[Robittybob1]

It could simply be part of their normal testing ever six months...but if they are not tested they are not scientifically validated..
So does residual scent last one week or one year....no one can prove either way

Well put it this way if a human can smell it it is there, do you agree with that.  Just use humans instead of cadaver dogs.
Multiply what a human can do by 300 times to get what good dog could do.

[Mr Gray]

Well put it this way if a human can smell it it is there, do you agree with that.  Just use humans instead of cadaver dogs.
Multiply what a human can do by 300 times to get what good dog could do.

your post doesnt really make any sense......the alerts are not supported by evidence

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

to what odours are the dogs tested now? it could be a cloth that has been in contact with a cadaver. You wouldnt just do it with one sample but perhaps 20......then a test of 20 contminated and 20 not contaminated. To confirm the test would be repeated by different handlers.

As for satisfying poeple like me I presume you mean those with a scientific background who understand what scientific evidence is.

without proper scientific testing the alerts are simply opinion.

IMO you aren't looking at this scientifically at all. When you are published in forensic science journals then maybe people will take note. You suggested that the dogs could alert to millions of other smells and then suggest testing against those compounds to verify the dog isn't false alerting. Such testing as I'm sure you'll actually know (being the scientific type is impossible - there are too many possibilities for false alert compounds that you could keep demanding a test for.... you would never be satisfied which is exactly your intention...

In actual fact... It goes like this: the dogs are trained in a specific and specialised way to alert to cadaver odour. The accuracy of their alerts to CADAVER ODOUR are rigorously tested and verified. Peer reviewed science journals pretty much all agree that the dogs will correctly alert to cadaver odour 92%-100% of the time. It doesn't matter that occasionally the alert might by a mistake because it isn't a dog barking that is the evidence. Instead the dog barking indicates to the handler that there is a strong likelihood that a corpse (at some point in time) has been present in the area alerted to. This then allows forensic scientists to locate areas where forensic evidence may be recovered. This forensic evidence can then be interpreted and presented as admissible evidence  in a trial.

[Robittybob1]

your post doesnt really make any sense......the alerts are not supported by evidence

do the test using people rather than cadaver dogs.  If a human can smell the test sample 1 week after a dog will smell it 300 times longer than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.

If a human can smell the test sample 1 day later, a dog will smell it 300 times longer (what ever factor you care to use) than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.

[Mr Gray]

do the test using people rather than cadaver dogs.  If a human can smell the test sample 1 week after a dog will smell it 300 times longer than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.

If a human can smell the test sample for 1 day later, a dog will smell it 300 times longer than that for their sense of smell is so much better than ours.

Sorry Rob...that's your opinion...very unscientific...and absolute rubbish imo
Why not just test the dogs

[Robittybob1]

Sorry Rob...that's your opinion...very unscientific...and absolute rubbish imo
Why not just test the dogs

A person can describe what is happening.  A dog can't discuss its thoughts with the tester. 

[Robittybob1]

Davel - do you accept a dog's sense of smell is better than that of a human?

If it is, what factor would you say it was?