Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?

[Robittybob1]

Both dogs alert to blood. If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn't it is not for blood. Simple not complicated!

Still incorrect IMO.

[pathfinder73]

Why? They both were trained to alert to human blood. They both recognise that scent!

Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Mr Gray]

Why? They both were trained to alert to human blood. They both recognise that scent!

Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Because...for the tenth time...cite provided three times....Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras Eddie will alert to blood not dried in situ...so Eddie will alert to blood that keela may have missed

[Eleanor]

Eddie was originally trained as a Victim Recovery Dog.  Sometimes in accidents victims are still alive and bleeding Blood.

[Carana]

Because...for the tenth time...cite provided three times....Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras Eddie will alert to blood not dried in situ...so Eddie will alert to blood that keela may have missed

Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.

The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...

Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.

[Brietta]

Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.

The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...

Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.

That is surely a critical period.  Post disappearance ... pre dog inspection.

[Mr Gray]

Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.

The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...

Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.

What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...


This is what Grime said..

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

[Robittybob1]

What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...


This is what Grime said..

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

You should have made it clear that  In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location. applies to the CSI dog only.

[Carana]

What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...


This is what Grime said..

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

Ÿes, I know. But that passage refers to Keela, except for the last sentence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

He said this about Keela:

She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there *physically* for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

He didn't say the same about Eddie who could apparently sniff residual scent - hence my oft-asked question as to whether any of the previous occupants could have left something with a bit of blood on it, which could have been thrown away by a cleaning lady prior to the dogs' arrival.

As they don't appear to have been questioned, I guess we'll never know.

[Mr Gray]

Ÿes, I know. But that passage refers to Keela, except for the last sentence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

He said this about Keela:

She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there *physically* for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

He didn't say the same about Eddie who could apparently sniff residual scent - hence my oft-asked question as to whether any of the previous occupants could have left something with a bit of blood on it, which could have been thrown away by a cleaning lady prior to the dogs' arrival.

As they don't appear to have been questioned, I guess we'll never know.

Are you suggesting Eddie would not react to dried blood...exactly as Keela would.. I'm sure you are quite wrong.

Where have you got the information Eddie reacts to the remnant scent of blood... I've never seen that

[Carana]

Are you suggesting Eddie would not react to dried blood...exactly as Keela would.. I'm sure you are quite wrong

No, not at all.

I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.

Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.

[pathfinder73]

Identify the EXACT location of blood so small in size that when forensically recovered will NOT provide a full DNA strand despite low copy DNA analysis.



https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

[Mr Gray]

No, not at all.

I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.

Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.

If you read my cite as to what Grime said... It's possible that a n alert from Eddie but no alert from Keela could still be blood. That is what is surprising...

[Carana]

If you read my cite as to what Grime said... It's possible that a n alert from Eddie but no alert from Keela could still be blood. That is what is surprising...

Yes, hence my query about previous occupants / cleaning staff post-disappearance who weren't questioned. There might be a very simple explanation that had nothing to do with Madeleine.

[Carana]

Identify the EXACT location of blood so small in size that when forensically recovered will NOT provide a full DNA strand despite low copy DNA analysis.



https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

Not very helpful in terms of locating verifiable evidence, though, is it?