The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[pathfinder73]

If they ID Smithman the dogs evidence will be corroborated. Eddie clearly marked the pants and the red plane kid t-shirt.

[Redblossom]

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?"

adds no proof! but they need to be used, they are, with the help of other dogs, they add intelligence, info needing to be followed up,and that's always useful to any investigation.....if they weren't, police forces wouldn't waste their time and resources doing so!!!

I think they know better than you probably... Now if I may go and do the shopping for tonight's meal I hope I can do so in peace without being told I'm running away, cheers


 

[ferryman]

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?

Yes, they can, because the dogs were incompetently deployed.

Grime, apparently, felt  Eddie needed two cracks at 'reacting' to cuddle-cat.

Or (more likely) hid the toy in a cupboard to avoid repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with it.

Asked in his rogatory interview about cross-contamination, Grime replied that cross-contamination is "immediate"

Why then, did Grime ignore the principle in the way clothes were transported to the gym, all together, in cardboard boxes?

Grime himself says that alerting errors by dogs are most commonly caused by handler-cueing. 

So what about those findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault?

[Carew]

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?"

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

Words....."logic"......to imply that both pieces of intelligence from the cadaver dog responses mean exactly the same.

The positive alerts don`t stand alone, but they do not have the same meaning as non-alerts.

[EnolaStraight]

adds no proof! but they need to be used, they are, with the help of other dogs, they add intelligence, info needing to be followed up,and that's always useful to any investigation.....if they weren't, police forces wouldn't waste their time and resources doing so!!!

I think they know better than you probably... Now if I may go and do the shopping for tonight's meal I hope I can do so in peace without being told I'm running away, cheers

It is matter of logic and scientific procedure, not of opinion.

Given the facts of the situation, a dog alert without forensic confirmation adds no definite knowledge to the sum available before the alert.

Any use of such alerts as 'evidence' in any court is only possible by ignoring logic and scientific procedure. It may be a piece of information that should be considered by a jury, but no Judge (in the UK at least) would allow a prosecution to use it as confirmatory evidence of any fact- only as further information. If it were to be admitted in a UK court, it would be hedged by warnings by the judge that no substantive weight could be put on the alert itself, and any defence would be well able to demonstrate the problems of logic and science that make such alerts unreliable.

[Mr Gray]

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

Words....."logic"......to imply that both pieces of intelligence from the cadaver dog responses mean exactly the same.

The positive alerts don`t stand alone, but they do not have the same meaning as non-alerts.

From an evidence point of view..they do

[Carew]

Yes, they can, because the dogs were incompetently deployed.

Grime, apparently, felt  Eddie needed two cracks at 'reacting' to cuddle-cat.

Or (more likely) hid the toy in a cupboard to avoid repeat of the fiasco of Eddie playing with it.

Asked in his rogatory interview about cross-contamination, Grime replied that cross-contamination is "immediate"

Why then, did Grime ignore the principle in the way clothes were transported to the gym, all together, in cardboard boxes?

Grime himself says that alerting errors by dogs are most commonly caused by handler-cueing. 

So what about those findMadeleine stickers in the back of the Renault?

None of those points take away the existence of the alerts themselves, though.

Why not look at non-alerts and question why immediate cross-contamination did not affect all clothing, for instance?

It seems that a separate "excuse"........ (or piece of logic)............has to be thought up to negate first one alert and then another.

I feel that if Mr Grime utilised the many and varied agendas, cuing  and so forth ,imo he`d have made a better job of it!

[Carew]

From an evidence point of view..they do

From a collective of intelligence gathered in an investigation, they don`t.

[EnolaStraight]

None of those points take away the existence of the alerts themselves, though.

Why not look at non-alerts and question why immediate cross-contamination did not affect all clothing, for instance?

It seems that a separate "excuse"........ (or piece of logic)............has to be thought up to negate first one alert and then another.

I feel that if Mr Grime utilised the many and varied agendas, cuing  and so forth ,imo he`d have made a better job of it!

Absence of evidence does not require explanation as absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Logically, dog alerts alone cannot add to human knowledge for logical and empirical reasons.

[EnolaStraight]

A very nice theoretical demonstration.

It is important to realise that some people just do not understand logic and see it as special pleading. It is an unfortunate side effect of forensics and debate as well as logic and philosophy not being taught below university level, leaving a good deal of the public unable to reason correctly.

Luckily laws of evidence ensure that trials are fair and aeroplanes fly.

[Carana]

From another thread 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"?

Which side of the room was that on (to spare me watching it yet again)? I remember that he seemed interested in a large greeny T-shirt down the right-hand side of the area.

From memory, the first thing he tossed into the air was a tiny pair of blue shorts, then the red T-shirt next to it. Those items got him barking his little cotton socks off. Were they Sean's? The red T-shirt seems to have been.

People's clothes seem to have been arranged from children on the left side of the wall, Kate in the corner, then Gerry and whatever else alongside the wall on the right.

He did seem interested in Kate's checked trousers, but not her white top... so how that made it into the list isn't clear.

Were they all clean clothes or not? If not, could a child's widdle on a pile of pending laundry have set him off?

The whole exercise seems totally bizarre to me.

[EnolaStraight]

This argument is not a new argument. The absence of forensic evidence has been done to death to what avail? It's obvious there is insufficient forensic evidence. If there was forensic evidence then we would have seen charges brought a long time ago. To dismiss the dogs finding on the basis of no forensics is stating the obvious.

Unlike ghosts cadavers have been proven to exist and also have a unique scent. The lack of other forensic evidence does not mean that cadaver scent is not present. It just means there is a lack of other forensic evidence.

It means that we know no more about the presence of cadaver odour in PdL than we knew before the dogs were deployed.

[Serendipity]

Which side of the room was that on (to spare me watching it yet again)? I remember that he seemed interested in a large greeny T-shirt down the right-hand side of the area.

From memory, the first thing he tossed into the air was a tiny pair of blue shorts, then the red T-shirt next to it. Those items got him barking his little cotton socks off. Were they Sean's? The red T-shirt seems to have been.

People's clothes seem to have been arranged from children on the left side of the wall, Kate in the corner, then Gerry and whatever else alongside the wall on the right.

He did seem interested in Kate's checked trousers, but not her white top... so how that made it into the list isn't clear.

Were they all clean clothes or not? If not, could a child's widdle on a pile of pending laundry have set him off?

The whole exercise seems totally bizarre to me.

Eddie was trained to exclude (deconditioned) to urine, faeces and semen and would only alert to them if they were mixed with dried blood so there is not a hope that he was alerting to 'widdle' as you put it.  Keela did not alert to any of the clothing and therefore a blood alert can be ruled out leaving only alerts to cadaver scent. Both dogs were used in tandem  to reliably differentiate between an alert to blood and an alert to the scent of a dead body or body parts.   In simple terms, if both Eddie and Keela alerted then the alerts were to blood.  If Eddie alerted but Keela did not then the alert was to cadaver scent.

[Carew]

It means that we know no more about the presence of cadaver odour in PdL than we knew before the dogs were deployed.

No........We know that cadaver alerts occurred in some sites in PDL and not others.

Trying to bury them in smart, tortuous terminology won`t alter their existence or the fact that they are intelligence gathered concerning this case.

What becomes of the intelligence eventually remains to be seen.

[stephen25000]

No........We know that cadaver alerts occurred in some sites in PDL and not others.

Trying to bury them in smart, tortuous terminology won`t alter their existence or the fact that they are intelligence gathered concerning this case.

What becomes of the intelligence eventually remains to be seen.

Nicely put Carew.