Cadaver dogs are unreliable - Eugene Zapata

[misty]

Read the journals. It is scientific research and potential pitfalls and bias are  considered.

The 100% means on a certain day dog "A" will alert correctly X out of X times when cadaver odour is present on an object hidden with other objects in a test area. There are many variables tested and researched.

Eddie was never tasked to find human cadaver or body parts during his ACPO testing in the UK. How should this untested skill have been evaluated for reliability when sent on live deployments?

[misty]

Does Misty think the dogs will always have to be 100% reliable?

If someone's life or liberty depends on it then, yes.

[Robittybob1]

If someone's life or liberty depends on it then, yes.

But any alert has to be corroborated.

[Mr Gray]

Davel we don't want to go back to having rows but unless you make proper sentences will will never make progress.
"So a scent a week old...ties in with what the American says"  What  do you mean by that?
A scent made by someone walking can be tracked by a tracker dog a week later.

A scent left by a cadaver - there is no science to show how long that remains.  But anyone who knows a cadaver smells a lot worse than most people's feet.

My post makes perfect sense it seems it's just you who has problems with understanding

My post makes perfect sense in the context it was made...if you take any post out if context it may look as though it doesn't make sense.
There is no evidence about how long remnant scent lasts....that is the whole point I was making

[Mr Gray]

No it is you who is confusing that with me.  I've never said anything along those lines.

You made a suggestion that grime could have made some arrangement with amaral ..it's probably still there

[Mr Gray]

But any alert has to be corroborated.

In Luz grime and Harrison talked of physical corroboration...now grime is talking about anecdotal witness statements....the goalposts have been moved

[barrier]

Would you therefore tend to agree that a cadaver dog which deviates from its discipline is unreliable?

Given there was never going to be a body how can it be said the dog deviated from its discipline.

[Vertigo Swirl]

But any alert has to be corroborated.

Not in the case of D’Andre Lane it seems, unless you consider (conflicting) witness statements to be corroboration.  Grime seems to have changed his position on what does and does not corroborate dog alerts.

[Eleanor]

Not in the case of D’Andre Lane it seems, unless you consider (conflicting) witness statements to be corroboration.  Grime seems to have changed his position on what does and does not corroborate dog alerts.

If a dog can't smell cadaver odour through a paper bag then you have to wonder.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If a dog can't smell cadaver odour through a paper bag then you have to wonder.

Oh but this was a very special sort of paper bag, one which any murderer worth their salt knows to use when discarding of body parts.  They are cadaver dog proof.  I expect the McCanns took a supply of these paper bags with them on holiday, just in case. 

[G-Unit]

If someone's life or liberty depends on it then, yes.

Even DNA evidence isn't 100% reliable. Grime has always been very clear. Dog alerts don't prove anything. Sometimes, however, they can be used by the prosecution, along with other evidence, to make a case as in the Lane and Gilroy trials.

[Mr Gray]

Even DNA evidence isn't 100% reliable. Grime has always been very clear. Dog alerts don't prove anything. Sometimes, however, they can be used by the prosecution, along with other evidence, to make a case as in the Lane and Gilroy trials.

Grime hasn't been very clear...far from clear imo
DNA isn't 100% but the expert will normally give an estimate.
So in Luz grime says .. possibly...and suggests..

He gives no indication of how possible...or how suggestive..

Does he know...as I said...far from clear

It's possible ..according to Grime that an alert was to cadaver...it's possible Maddie is still alive...

Grime said possible...not probable

[barrier]

Grime hasn't been very clear...far from clear imo
DNA isn't 100% but the expert will normally give an estimate.
So in Luz grime says .. possibly...and suggests..

He gives no indication of how possible...or how suggestive..

Does he know...as I said...far from clear

It's possible ..according to Grime that an alert was to cadaver...it's possible Maddie is still alive...

Grime said possible...not probable

Why does it matter about the dogs,the case doesn't hinge on their responses.Unless of course its to call into question a certain dog handlers reputation.

[Mr Gray]

Why does it matter about the dogs,the case doesn't hinge on their responses.Unless of course its to call into question a certain dog handlers reputation.

it does for many sceptics...its in the proven facts

Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida said he believed the British child had died in her family's apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz on the day she went missing. He told the court the main evidence for this was the findings of British police sniffer dogs sent to Portugal to examine the flat. The McCanns' lawyer, Isabel Duarte, challenged this claim, arguing that the results from sniffer dogs did not constitute proof and were not allowed as evidence in the case.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/12/madeleine-mccann-parents-defamation-book

I think grime could have done a lot more to balance this sort of statement...however if he had done that would have damaged the reputaion of his dogs

[Holly Goodhead]

Even DNA evidence isn't 100% reliable. Grime has always been very clear. Dog alerts don't prove anything. Sometimes, however, they can be used by the prosecution, along with other evidence, to make a case as in the Lane and Gilroy trials.

The type of testing used in this case, low copy number (lcn), is as good as useless.  I spent a lot of time understanding lcn when I was on the Bamber case as it featured heavily at one of the appeal hearings.  The 3 appeal court judges ruled it as "utterly meaningless".  It will be a useful tool in some cases but in this case, as with Bamber, its impossible to rule out innocent contamination.  With lcn the 'human cellular material' ie source material is unknown eg saliva, blood, skin cells etc.  It works with samples invisible to the naked eye. 

I note many commentators such as Jim Gamble from CEOP explain the possibility of MM's DNA in the car from GM/KM but its just as likely it came from items MM had contact with which then contaminated other places she had the slightest contact with either directly or indirectly.  A reading, full or partial, can be picked up from some material as small as 1,000,000th the size of grain of salt  .