How many episodes of dog alerts were suggestive of cadaver odor?

[Redblossom]

The logic goes like this

Keela reacts only to blood, Eddie to blood and cadaver.

The only result suggestive of cadaver is Eddie alerts (blood or cadaver) and Keela does not (not blood).

A single alert by Eddie tells us nothing about the presence of cadaver.

It does, it shows the possibility at least, (Eddie was trained after all on dead bodies), Keela alerting does not remove that possibility, how can it? When there is no test for cadaver scent? Assuming it must be or even probably blood is just that, an assumption. I am not deliberately obtuse, this is how I understand it.

Which brings us to what is cadaver odour? From a dead body. Is the dog able to differentiate between the hundreds of chemicals emitted and recognise just one or two that could be present ie in semen, urine, etc, and alert? Clever dogs hey? Even if true, there is no way of knowing, is there? But logic dictates that if it was, these dogs would be alerting all the time to all these substances and we know that is not the case.

Edited for afterthougt

[debunker]

The logic goes like this

Keela reacts only to blood, Eddie to blood and cadaver.

The only result suggestive of cadaver is Eddie alerts (blood or cadaver) and Keela does not (not blood).

A single alert by Eddie tells us nothing about the presence of cadaver.

It does, it shows the possibility at least, (Eddie was trained after all on dead bodies), Keela alerting does not remove that possibility, how can it? When there is no test for cadaver scent? Assuming it must be or even probably blood is just that, an assumption. I am not deliberately obtuse, this is how I understand it.

Eddie alerts to blood alone. Eddie was originally trained in the same way as a blood dog. Cadaver dogs cannot distinguishbetween blood odor and cadaver odor.

[Redblossom]

Eddie alerts to blood alone. Eddie was originally trained in the same way as a blood dog. Cadaver dogs cannot distinguishbetween blood odor and cadaver odor.

What do you mean by Eddie alerts to blood alone? That he can do so when he is alone, ie without Keela! To confirm this?or that that is all he alerts to? Are you suggesting he does not react to the the scent of dead bodies without blood? And if he reacts to only blood, why have akeela in tandem?

Do see my amended earlier post also.

[debunker]

Eddie alerts to blood alone. Eddie was originally trained in the same way as a blood dog. Cadaver dogs cannot distinguishbetween blood odor and cadaver odor.

What do you mean by Eddie alerts to blood alone? That he can do so when he is alone, ie without Keela! To confirm this?or that that is all he alerts to? Are you suggesting he does not react to the the scent of dead bodies without blood? And if he reacts to only blood, why have akeela in tandem?

Do see my amended earlier post also.

Eddie will give a positive alert to blood even when no cadaver odor is present. Source: his trainer and handler.

Do you accept his word on this?

[Redblossom]

Eddie alerts to blood alone. Eddie was originally trained in the same way as a blood dog. Cadaver dogs cannot distinguishbetween blood odor and cadaver odor.

What do you mean by Eddie alerts to blood alone? That he can do so when he is alone, ie without Keela! To confirm this?or that that is all he alerts to? Are you suggesting he does not react to the the scent of dead bodies without blood? And if he reacts to only blood, why have akeela in tandem?

Do see my amended earlier post also.

Eddie will give a positive alert to blood even when no cadaver odor is present. Source: his trainer and handler.

Do you accept his word on this?

I have never said I didn't think he reacted to blood, why ask silly questions and post silly polls when everyone knows by now he also alerts to dry blood. You didn't answer my questions.

Oh and what is the reason that cadaver dogs cant distinguish between cadaver scent from a body and blood?

[debunker]

Your post is very confusing so I am breaking it down into constituent parts.

SO, you accept that Eddie will react to dried human blood whatever the origin- whether that blood came from a dead person or from someone still alive at that time?

[icabodcrane]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

[Redblossom]

Your post is very confusing so I am breaking it down into constituent parts.

SO, you accept that Eddie will react to dried human blood whatever the origin- whether that blood came from a dead person or from someone still alive at that time?

Yes, go on

[debunker]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.

There is always the possibility that either Blood or Cadaver is present (blood far more likely in almost any environment than cadaver.

So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

If Eddie alerts, this gives us no new information about the presence of Cadaver odor. It gives us no new . evidence about the presence of blood. There is still the possibility that blood OR Cadaver is present. We do now lnow that either blood or cadaver is probably present with a 90% chance of it being a correct indication.

Now Keela alerts. This means that blood is present. SO we now know with 90% confidence that blood is present. Cadaver odor may be present but we have no more information about this since before both alerts. The evidentiary situation is the same or cadaver but has changed for blood.

If Keela does not alert we now have an 80% confidence that cadaver is present (and a 90% confidence that blood is not.)

[debunker]

Your post is very confusing so I am breaking it down into constituent parts.

SO, you accept that Eddie will react to dried human blood whatever the origin- whether that blood came from a dead person or from someone still alive at that time?

Yes, go on

Now see my post above to Icabodcrane.

[ferryman]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

The slight difficulty, here, is that Keela was used as the indicator of precision; Eddie as the broadbrush indicator.

That is to say that Eddie did not inspect specific spots in any of the areas where he was deployed; Keela did.

So the source of any Eddie's reactions might have been completely different from those of Keela's ...

[icabodcrane]

Check the title of the thread.

The key word is SUGGESTIVE.

A single alert by Eddie is never suggestive of cadaver odor presence than a non-alert. Using Eddie alone is never suggestive of cadaver odor.

When the cadaver dog alerts, and the blood dog does not, it is suggestive that cadaver odour is present  ...  cadaver odour is present,  blood is not

When both the cadaver and blood dog alert, it is suggestive that blood is present ...  blood is present,  cadaver odour may  be present

Your intention seems to be to convince the board that :

When both cadaver and blood dog alert,  it is suggestive that only  blood is present  ( and that cadaver scent is not )

That is incorrect 

When both dogs alerted together   (  as behind the sofa )  it is entirely possible that there was both blood and cadaver scent present

Do you agree ?

Stop misquoting me.

You are not reading the words I am using.



So we start from the possibility that blood OR cadaver is present.

Why ? 

What is the scientific rule that dictates when both dogs alert it must be one and the same element they are alerting to ?

Why will you not accept that when the cadaver dog and the blood dog both alerted behind that sofa,  it is entirely  possible that they did so because both blood and cadaver odour  was present ?

[registrar]

pseudoscents:

cadaverine in a bottle

a long read but worth it:

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/mar/thefakesmellofde714

[Redblossom]

Your post is very confusing so I am breaking it down into constituent parts.

SO, you accept that Eddie will react to dried human blood whatever the origin- whether that blood came from a dead person or from someone still alive at that time?

Yes, go on

Now see my post above to Icabodcrane.

No, this discourse is between you and me and all the steps you need to take to...well I forgot now exactly but probably why Eddies alerts should not be indicative of the possibility of scent from a dead body
 


or just leave it for now

[registrar]

Reader's digest:

quote:

Five to fifteen minutes after death, protein synthesis in the body grinds to a halt. With nothing to maintain the protective lining of the gut, digestive enzymes eat the body from the inside out, splitting proteins into amino acids. At the same time, the body’s resident bacteria, unhindered by an immune system, feast on the amino acids and skyrocket in number. As the bacteria produce chemicals such as ammonia and ptomaines (with such apt names as putrescine and cadaverine), they produce the distinctive smell of decaying flesh. Each stage of decomposition produces distinct peaks and ebbs in the levels of various chemicals, including the ptomaines, which is a great help to both the pathologist who wants to determine the time of death and the chemist trying to emulate the smell of it.

Juehne cataloged the chemicals most likely to be in the air or soil around a decaying human body--both fresh (Pseudo Corpse I) and well aged (Pseudo Corpse II). Among these, he looked for chemicals that might set the smell of a human corpse apart from that of an animal. I needed something unique about the human body versus a dead animal, says Juehne.

unquote

source:

http://discovermagazine.com/1996/mar/thefakesmellofde714