The dogs.....

[Mr Moderator]

Sniffer dogs drop in on Praia da Luz.  (thanks to Carana for photo link)

[pegasus]

As John correctly points out Eddie clearly did not have any signalling interest in the cat.
As Sadie correctly points out, the "cat" alert was not to the cat, it was to a pile of items on top of the sideboard.
I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that the pile he sniffs on the sideboard is a pile of about 6 neatly folded clothing items (with a single sheet of paper on top).

Total consistency from Eddie re clothes and place they had been:
At apartment he alerts to a wardrobe where a pile of many clothes had been, at villa he alerts to a small % of those same clothes, and at gym he alerts again to the same small % of those clothes (from the "sala da estar" box remember).
   
Total consistency from Eddie re cat: he never alerts to it
At apartment he does not alert in north bedroom (where cat had been found 10pm 3rd), at villa he does not alert to cat when he first finds it by a chair, and he does not alert to cat when it is hidden in a sideboard.

Whole post just IMO might be wrong

[pathfinder73]

Completely wrong! I still don't know how you turn a pile of papers into a pile of clothes?

[icabodcrane]

Sniffer dogs drop in on Praia da Luz.  (thanks to Carana for photo link)

Despite the relentless  (  and entirely insupportable )  ridicule,  it appears the police have reason to rely on the assistance of dogs

If Scotland Yard want them brought in again then I guess it's fair to assume that they have not ruled out the reliability of the previous deployments

[pegasus]

Completely wrong! I still don't know how you turn a pile of papers into a pile of clothes?

My opinion is that the late Eddie was extremely skilled and absolutely incapable of being inconsistent.
The notion that he would miss the cat on first pass, the signal it on second, I find to be an insult to him.
Also the notion that he would ignore those several clothing items on first pass in villa lounge, but then signal them later in a gym, is doubling the insult to him JIMO.

I provided an exact location for those particular clothing items in the villa living area.
They were then put in the box labelled "sala da estar" BTW.
Happy to consider your constructive alternative - where in the villa living area (openplan lounge/diner, of which you have the dog video of the entire room) do you say those clothes are?

[John]

Dogs can be very effective given the right circumstances but now, seven years on, I really have my doubts.

[pegasus]

Dogs can be very effective given the right circumstances but now, seven years on, I really have my doubts.

Well if one places a body shallow underground, then takes this kind of dog to that location 7 years later, I think that the dog will signal.

[Silkywhiskers]

Well if one places a body shallow underground, then takes this kind of dog to that location 7 years later, I think that the dog will signal.

The dog who found the Long Island Serial Killing Fields, did it on his tea break.

IF there is a body buried, they can find it.

If there WAS a body buried, then dug up?  The famous coconut alert tells us, yes indeed, the soil can contain and hold cadaverine for decades after.

[slartibartfast]

I am so sick of percentages in this case.

Smithman is "only" 80% - somehow Team McCann makes 20% more meaningful than 80%.

The dogs are "only" 98% reliable - 2% again used as some sort of "proof of failure" when common sense AND THE BLOODY STATISTICS both say that anything more than 50% needs to be looked at as a positive.

It works for school exams, it works in investigations.

Let this be THE END of bickering about statistics.

SY ARE DIGGING UP PDL.

You know what they say...

“Million-to-one chances...crop up nine times out of ten.”


― Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites

[Cariad]

OK...first...it seems you accept Cariad can make a claim and supply no evidence...yet you expect me to supply evidence...answer this then we can move forward

Firstly, I have never claimed that EVRD's are infallible. It never happened. You have invented it.

Secondly, here is my cite for Eddie having a 100% record:

"Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search."

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

I'd assumed that you had read the case files, so would've been aware of this.

You've made a series of posts over the last couple of days claiming that I said something I didn't. It's not only against forum rules, it's unjust to misrepresent me in such a way on an open forum.

[Mr Gray]

Firstly, I have never claimed that EVRD's are infallible. It never happened. You have invented it.

Secondly, here is my cite for Eddie having a 100% record:

"Vol IX p. 2481
FALSE ALERTS

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search."

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

I'd assumed that you had read the case files, so would've been aware of this.

You've made a series of posts over the last couple of days claiming that I said something I didn't. It's not only against forum rules, it's unjust to misrepresent me in such a way on an open forum.

What I am saying is absolutely true and John has supported me. I find it unbelievable that grime would say this...I have doubts he did...


No one knows how many times eddie has been wrong...even grime...it is impossible to say...how many alerts in jersey or PDL were correct...no one  knows. Therefore it is wrong to say eddie has never been wrong.

You and  a lot of other posters do not understand the dogs...that's why your conclusions are wrong.


Forensics is a science...grime cannot make claims that he cannot support...thas why I find it hard to believe Grime said this

[Alfred R Jones]

Eddie the "cadaver" dog alerted to a tissue used for cleaning up after sex.  If he had a 100% record as far as only alerting to corpses is concerned then this alert would have been indicative of the presence of a cadaver - was it?

[Brietta]

As John correctly points out Eddie clearly did not have any signalling interest in the cat.
As Sadie correctly points out, the "cat" alert was not to the cat, it was to a pile of items on top of the sideboard.
I seem to be the only person in the world who can see that the pile he sniffs on the sideboard is a pile of about 6 neatly folded clothing items (with a single sheet of paper on top).

Total consistency from Eddie re clothes and place they had been:
At apartment he alerts to a wardrobe where a pile of many clothes had been, at villa he alerts to a small % of those same clothes, and at gym he alerts again to the same small % of those clothes (from the "sala da estar" box remember).
   
Total consistency from Eddie re cat: he never alerts to it
At apartment he does not alert in north bedroom (where cat had been found 10pm 3rd), at villa he does not alert to cat when he first finds it by a chair, and he does not alert to cat when it is hidden in a sideboard.

Whole post just IMO might be wrong

I think it should be remembered that the videos we are seeing have been edited.

Eddie's behaviour beside the sideboard was decidedly odd.
IMO he did not alert to a hidden cuddle cat inside the sideboard, but he most definitely alerted to what looks to me as a pile of folders on top.  In the absence of proof to exactly what they are,whether folders or carefully folded items of clothing with a paper on top makes no difference, that was what he alerted to on top and not in the sideboard.

What did he alert to on the chair?

I have a memory of Dr Amaral specifically mentioning that alert.  It was either in an extract from his book or a clip from his documentary.
Can anyone help?

[Cariad]

What I am saying is absolutely true and John has supported me. I find it unbelievable that grime would say this...I have doubts he did...


No one knows how many times eddie has been wrong...even grime...it is impossible to say...how many alerts in jersey or PDL were correct...no one  knows. Therefore it is wrong to say eddie has never been wrong.

You and  a lot of other posters do not understand the dogs...that's why your conclusions are wrong.


Forensics is a science...grime cannot make claims that he cannot support...thas why I find it hard to believe Grime said this

You have no idea what I do and do not understand. I know that EVRD's are not "notoriously unreliable" as Dr Mccann has previously claimed, hence I know more than him.

[Mr Gray]

You have no idea what I do and do not understand. I know that EVRD's are not "notoriously unreliable" as Dr Mccann has previously claimed, hence I know more than him.

You have shown what you understand...there is no way anyone can be sure that eddie is always correct