The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[Mr Gray]

Not misquoting are you perchance?

Where has he ever said exactly and only that? Nowhere

any Qc will not take kindly to cherry picking and twisting of facts though

the evrd dogs alerts were not corroborated and therefore according to grime have no evidential value..its in the files...will post later

[Redblossom]

I find your style of posting a little annoying, consisting as it seems to sideswipes at people who disagree with you and a failure to produce real evidence, relying largely on emotion and personal belief. It lessens the debate.

Sorry about that then. fact remains that davels post is false in asserting Mr Grime said the dogs alerts have no evidential value "full stop"

before and after the fss results
before:
SUMMARY

The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm


After:
'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

So do point it out where it's said there or anywhere that Mr Grme said the dog alerts in this case have no value/evidential value, interchangeable it seems too statements

oh and ps ES. I dont take sideswipes for anyone disagreeing with me but if what they post is just  not right, wouldnt want erroneous "facts" bandied around now would we?


 

[Mr Gray]

Sorry about that then. fact remains that davels post is false in asserting Mr Grime said the dogs alerts have no evidential value "full stop"

before and after the fss results
before:
SUMMARY

The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm


After:
'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. [/color]It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

So do point it out where it's said there or anywhere that Mr Grme said the dog alerts in this case have no value/evidential value, interchangeable it seems too statements

 Grime says "in this case"...are you taking this to say that every alert made by the dogs was corroborated by forensics...absolutely not

[Redblossom]

Grime says "in this case"...are you taking this to say that every alert made by the dogs was corroborated by forensics...absolutely not

Obviously NOT! a) no one claimed it b) there is no such thng as confirmation of cadaver scent as science is well behind dogs abilitiesThe best these forces have with teams of cadaver and blood dogs is the best they have at the moment

But it does refute your assertion that Grime said the dog alerts had no value, you still haven't come up with Mr Grime remotely saying anything like that! perpetuating falsehoods/disinforming I say!

[EnolaStraight]

Sorry about that then. fact remains that davels post is false in asserting Mr Grime said the dogs alerts have no evidential value "full stop"

before and after the fss results
before:
SUMMARY

The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating
Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and
locate human remains or Human blood.

The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.

Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm


After:
'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

So do point it out where it's said there or anywhere that Mr Grme said the dog alerts in this case have no value/evidential value, interchangeable it seems too statements

oh and ps ES. I dont take sideswipes for anyone disagreeing with me but if what they post is just  not right, wouldnt want erroneous "facts" bandied around now would we?


 

So as I understand it having read around those quotes:

Where the blood dog or cadaver dog alerted, and forensics of blood were found, that is evidence of blood being present.

Where the Cadaver dog alerted and the blood dog did not, because there was no confirming forensics, that is not evidential.

[pegasus]

From another thread

Have you watched the clothing video and what Eddie actually alerted to? I've posted my observations on here somewhere and it's not at all clear to me. His reactions don't seem to correspond to what was noted by the PJ, neither is it clear what the noted reaction actually was: tossing items in the air, nuzzling them, running and nuzzling... I don't see the logic.
For some reason, Grime stated that he didn't have the details... why not?

Yes I have watched the clothing video and agree it is uncertain exactly which clothing items were signalled.
IMO the handler should have written the list himself stating exactly which objects were signalled.
For example what about the light blue tshirt with logo "O'Neill"?

[EnolaStraight]

Obviously NOT! a) no one claimed it b) there is no such thng as confirmation of cadaver scent as science is well behind dogs abilitiesThe best these forces have with teams of cadaver and blood dogs is the best they have at the moment

But it does refute your assertion that Grime said the dog alerts had no value, you still haven't come up with Mr Grime remotely saying anything like that! perpetuating falsehoods/disinforming I say!

Cadaver scent could have been confirmed by detritus from a body; none was found.

[Redblossom]

So as I understand it having read around those quotes:

Where the blood dog or cadaver dog alerted, and forensics of blood were found, that is evidence of blood being present.

Where the Cadaver dog alerted and the blood dog did not, because there was no confirming forensics, that is not evidential.

It may be but you can't make that assumption for the simple reason both could have existed in the the one place

[Redblossom]

Cadaver scent could have been confirmed by detritus from a body; none was found.

I'm sure no detritus was left lyng around for three months. Eddie was sent in to find remnant scent not body parts.

You will excuse me now as I've been on more than one déjà vu groundhog day debate today, enjoy the rest though

[pegasus]

Pop into someones apartment and hide a block of hashish under a pile of clothes belonging to 5 different people.
Then remove the hashish.
Weeks later show those clothes to a drug dog.
Lets say the dog signals 3 of those clothing items.
The point is it is RANDOM which of the 5 individuals happen to own the 3 clothing items which came in direct contact while in the pile.

[EnolaStraight]

It may be but you can't make that assumption for the simple reason both could have existed in the the one place

But even if there was cadaver scent there in fact, the dog alerts could not improve on the information available initially- that we do not know whether cadaver scent was there.

Suppose you have a dog that is able to differentiate between static electricity and none (blood dog) and another that is claimed to differentiate between 'ghostly emanations' and their absence, but unfortunately it also reacts to static electricity.

Now set them to test for ghosts.

In case 1 Dog 1 reacts and a voltmeter agrees- static is present. Dog 2 also alerts.

In case 2 Dog 2 reacts but Dog 1 does not. This 'suggests' that ghostly emanations were there but it is not evidential as no further forensics for such emanations have been found. Now if an identifiable remnant of a ghost was found that could be forensically recognised, then one would have forensic confirmation.

Without such forensic evidence in either case, no evidence has been found and therefore our knowledge has not increased.

This is how science works. Evidence must follow the rules of logic.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But even if there was cadaver scent there in fact, the dog alerts could not improve on the information available initially- that we do not know whether cadaver scent was there.

Suppose you have a dog that is able to differentiate between static electricity and none (blood dog) and another that is claimed to differentiate between 'ghostly emanations' and their absence, but unfortunately it also reacts to static electricity.

Now set them to test for ghosts.

In case 1 Dog 1 reacts and a voltmeter agrees- static is present. Dog 2 also alerts.

In case 2 Dog 2 reacts but Dog 1 does not. This 'suggests' that ghostly emanations were there but it is not evidential as no further forensics for such emanations have been found. Now if an identifiable remnant of a ghost was found that could be forensically recognised, then one would have forensic confirmation.

Without such forensic evidence in either case, no evidence has been found and therefore our knowledge has not increased.

This is how science works. Evidence must follow the rules of logic.

Very nice, EnolaStraight

[Carew]

Running away and hiding when faced with real logic then!

Cadaver dog findings are meaningless without forensic confirmation so far as I can see.

As "meaningless" as the cadaver dog findings in sites in which no alerts whatsoever were made?


Dismissed as if they had not existed in the first place and the dog had moved through the sites with no response?

...........or viewed as an existing intelligence; but which does not stand alone as conclusive or verifiable ?

The alerts exist ...........They cannot be viewed as "meaningless" in the same way as non-existent surely?

[Redblossom]

Running away and hiding when faced with real logic then!

Cadaver dog findings are meaningless without forensic confirmation so far as I can see.

I was just bored, not running anywhere, you have a nerve don't you? Bit rude of you, btw welcome to the forum, you can find the introduce  yourself thread near the top of the main board

Seeing as there is no such thing as forensic confirmation of cadaver scent, and seeing as the closest back up dog handlers can use at the present time is a blood dog, or in the USA, a second cadaver dog to back up any alert as well, your point is pointless, in fact, by your  logic no cadaver dog would ever be used in a remnant scent situation, but they are, all the time


As I said, "bored" over repetitive old ground,  may come back to the thread if and when I become " unbored" at any point that is remotely and freshly nteresting

[EnolaStraight]

I was just bored, not running anywhere, you have a nerve don't you? Bit rude of you, btw welcome to the forum, you can find the introduce  yourself thread near the top of the main board

Seeing as there is no such thing as forensic confirmation of cadaver scent, and seeing as the closest back up dog handlers can use at the present time is a blood dog, or in the USA, a second cadaver dog to back up any alert as well, your point is pointless, in fact, by your  logic no cadaver dog would ever be used in a remnant scent situation, but they are, all the time

No cadaver dog alert can be confirming evidence without further forensics (cadaver fluids or solid detritus).

A cadaver dog alert adds no information to the question "Was a cadaver ever present here?"