The Portuguese Police thought the dogs were 100% accurate.

[Mr Gray]

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.

that's not what grime says

[Mr Gray]

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.

We know the cadaver dog alerted...we don't know what this alert indicates...Grime seems pretty vague about it

[Serendipity]

that's not what grime says

Umm oh yes it is.  Care to tell me what exactly is incorrect in what I posted?

[EnolaStraight]

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.

I believe that it is on record that Eddie reacted to semen in Jersey.

[Mr Gray]

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.

Grime says an alert is suggestive of cadaver scent...not that it IS cadaver scent...Grime doesn't quantify the degree of certainty that it IS cadaver scent

[EnolaStraight]

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.

You do not understand either empiricism or logic.

Dog alerts as in this case make them poor conveyors of the truth by both logical and empirical problems.

[Estuarine]

I believe that it is on record that Eddie reacted to semen in Jersey.

Are you sure it wasn't a dead sailor and something was lost in the translation?

[stephen25000]

You do not understand either empiricism or logic.

Dog alerts as in this case make them poor conveyors of the truth by both logical and empirical problems.

In your view.

[Serendipity]

I believe that it is on record that Eddie reacted to semen in Jersey.

Correct, he did so because it was mixed with blood on the tissue which was verified by Keela also alerting.

Source: http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
VT/9

The report regarding the tissue states

Blood dog - positive indication
EVRD – positive indication.

Both dogs alerting - blood
Eddie alerting but not Keela - cadaver scent

[EnolaStraight]

In your view.

No, it is not opinion.

If you understood logic and empiricism (which you obviously do not) then you would understand why alerts do not add to knowledge without further confirmation.

If you wanted to understand you probably could, but I suspect that you would not be able to for emotional reasons.

There are generally accepted rules of finding out both scientific and juridical truths, and dog alerts (unconfirmed) meet neither set of rules.

Not opinion, but fact.

This is almost as much fun as debating with creationists or birthers. They have the sae blindness to the laws of science and logic.

[EnolaStraight]

Correct, he did so because it was mixed with blood on the tissue which was verified by Keela also alerting.

Source: http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
VT/9

The report regarding the tissue states

Blood dog - positive indication
EVRD – positive indication.

Both dogs alerting - blood
Eddie alerting but not Keela - cadaver scent

I did not know that there was also blood.

[slartibartfast]

No, it is not opinion.

If you understood logic and empiricism (which you obviously do not) then you would understand why alerts do not add to knowledge without further confirmation.

If you wanted to understand you probably could, but I suspect that you would not be able to for emotional reasons.

There are generally accepted rules of finding out both scientific and juridical truths, and dog alerts (unconfirmed) meet neither set of rules.

Not opinion, but fact.

This is almost as much fun as debating with creationists or birthers. They have the sae blindness to the laws of science and logic.

You are getting very confused between knowledge and evidence and then muddying the waters with truth.

Take the case of the sound of a shot being used as evidence about the timing of a shooting and the subsequent placing of a suspect at the scene at that time. The only evidence would be someone's perception of the sound of the shot as there would be no forensic evidence of the sound. This would still be used in a court of law.

[pegasus]

Anyone read villa search warrant?
looks to me like it would have legally allowed k9 search outside too?
But no trace of that in video.

[EnolaStraight]

You are getting very confused between knowledge and evidence and then muddying the waters with truth.

Take the case of the sound of a shot being used as evidence about the timing of a shooting and the subsequent placing of a suspect at the scene at that time. The only evidence would be someone's perception of the sound of the shot as there would be no forensic evidence of the sound. This would still be used in a court of law.

Dog alerts could also be evidence in law- I have never denied that. Scientifically they do not have confirmative value- no addition to knowledge. Any judge in the UK would allow the defence to point out the unreliability of unconfirmed dog alerts and would have to warn the jury about the problem with such weak evidence.

[Mr Gray]

You are getting very confused between knowledge and evidence and then muddying the waters with truth.

Take the case of the sound of a shot being used as evidence about the timing of a shooting and the subsequent placing of a suspect at the scene at that time. The only evidence would be someone's perception of the sound of the shot as there would be no forensic evidence of the sound. This would still be used in a court of law.

what if the only witness hearing the shot was a dog