The dogs.....

[Mr Gray]

'the dogs job was to find forensics'

No the 'job' of the dogs was to indicate the presence of a variety of compounds and therefore the possibility of a body. That's why they were there.

Forensics is the application of scientific principles and analysis to the 'evidence' found to see what, if any significance it may have.

the job of the dogs was to find ..or help to find...forensic traces...forensics for short...to send back for analysis.

Forensic traces such as blood...body fluids..


my post was absolutely accurate

[stephen25000]

the job of the dogs was to find ..or help to find...forensic traces...forensics for short...to send back for analysis.

Forensic traces such as blood...body fluids..


my post was absolutely accurate

No dave.

Try looking up the definition.

Forensics is the empirical science of analysis.

[Mr Gray]

No dave.

Try looking up the definition.

Forensics is the empirical science of analysis.

so tell me Stephen..what do you mean by forensics when you say  " the forensics were inconclusive"

[Alice Purjorick]

Well my dears to me "forensics" means the utilisation of scientific methods and procedures to solve a crime. But that is not necessarily its true root. It would seem to me that it would be a very unusual doggy that was able to do that.
So perhaps the doggy indicates that maybe something is there and a forensic scientist tries to find it. With doggies having a very acute sense of smell maybe the doggy science is ahead of ours. Similar to it being able to hear things humans can't perhaps the dear little doggy can smell something that humans are unable to find because it is too small? Well if you accept the hearing argument (proven fact I believe) why would the argument with respect to smell be so outrageous?

[Mr Gray]

Well my dears to me "forensics" means the utilisation of scientific methods and procedures to solve a crime. But that is not necessarily its true root. It would seem to me that it would be a very unusual doggy that was able to do that.
So perhaps the doggy indicates that maybe something is there and a forensic scientist tries to find it. With doggies having a very acute sense of smell maybe the doggy science is ahead of ours. Similar to it being able to hear things humans can't perhaps the dear little doggy can smell something that humans are unable to find because it is too small? Well if you accept the hearing argument (proven fact I believe) why would the argument with respect to smell be so outrageous?

forensics is a science so as regards "maybe"...

maybe maddie died in the apt maybe she didn't...that's why the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability

[Brietta]

forensics is a science so as regards "maybe"...

maybe maddie died in the apt maybe she didn't...that's why the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability

Cadaver scent is transferable; so all it would take to cause an alert in, for example, a wardrobe would be for a bag which had been near a dead person to have been placed in it.  So no one need have died in the room. 

‘Transferable’ is the operative word … which is why a cadaver dog’s alert alone signifies nothing unless it can be proved what the dog is alerting to. 

It is far more likely that a ‘contaminated’ bag was placed on a shelf in the wardrobe in 5a than a child’s body.

[Alice Purjorick]

forensics is a science so as regards "maybe"...

maybe maddie died in the apt maybe she didn't...that's why the alerts themselves have no evidential reliability

I did give you a clue so maybe you should have examined the root. Forensics is NOT a science though in modern parlance "forensics" is used rather as a sort of metonym for "forensic science".
That apart sir you have failed as usual to address the principle of the post.

[Mr Gray]

I did give you a clue so maybe you should have examined the root. Forensics is NOT a science though in modern parlance "forensics" is used rather as a sort of metonym for "forensic science".
That apart sir you have failed as usual to address the principle of the post.

the dogs purpose is to help recover forensic evidence...blood...body fluids... as they did.

The fact that I shortened forensic evidence to forensics is neither here nor there....

forensics is most certainly a science

[Mr Gray]

As I have said...the purpose of the dogs is to help find forensic evidence. in this case they found nothing of any significance and certainly nothing to prove Maddie's death.

[Mr Gray]

This is from Grime's rogatory...

During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence.

The dog locates blood..ie....finds blood

[Brietta]

http://wn.com/madeleine_mccann__sniffer_dogs_eddie_and_keela?orderby=rating

Footage of the search of the garden of 5a begins at appx. 53:04. 

At appx. 57:18 Martin Grime picks up a small object from the shrubbery saying he will have to look at this tomorrow in daylight.

At appx. 57:36 he states that they searched the outer perimeter, there was some interest here (Eddie having given one very half hearted bark) but it will take some further examination to see what’s going on.

From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.

[ferryman]

http://wn.com/madeleine_mccann__sniffer_dogs_eddie_and_keela?orderby=rating

Footage of the search of the garden of 5a begins at appx. 53:04. 

At appx. 57:18 Martin Grime picks up a small object from the shrubbery saying he will have to look at this tomorrow in daylight.

At appx. 57:36 he states that they searched the outer perimeter, there was some interest here (Eddie having given one very half hearted bark) but it will take some further examination to see what’s going on.

From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.

From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.

There was no excavation, true, but cuttings from the flowerbed were sent to the FSS and examined for blood.

No blood was found.

I think it would have been obvious if there had been major disturbances of earth ...

[Eleanor]

From that I am not too sure that Eddie did alert in the garden area, perhaps that is why it was never followed up by excavation of any kind.

There was no excavation, true, but cuttings from the flowerbed were sent to the FSS and examined for blood.

No blood was found.

I think it would have been obvious if there had been major disturbances of earth ...

No blood was found.  And Cadaver Scent can't be pinpointed in the absence of body fluids, and or a body.

Fertilisers often contain animal products.  Even Urine is a good fertiliser.  In the absence of Cadaver Odour a Cadaver Dog will react to body fluids from living people.  This was stated in Court in the Casey Anthony Trial by an American Cadaver Dog Handler whose dog alerted in The Anthony House Garden.
And we all know what happened to Casey Anthony.

[ferryman]

Even Urine is a good fertiliser.  In the absence of Cadaver Odour a Cadaver Dog will react to body fluids from living people.

Ooooooooooooooooh!

That'll get you into trouble in certain quarters, Eleanor.

The constituent of urine that some dogs might react to is cadaverine, also a primary constituent of pseudo-scents, which Grime said Eddie wouldn't react to, and which dogs actually trained on human remains won't.

But I agree!

[Eleanor]

Even Urine is a good fertiliser.  In the absence of Cadaver Odour a Cadaver Dog will react to body fluids from living people.

Ooooooooooooooooh!

That'll get you into trouble in certain quarters, Eleanor.

The constituent of urine that some dogs might react to is cadaverine, also a primary constituent of pseudo-scents, which Grime said Eddie wouldn't react to, and which dogs actually trained on human remains won't.

But I agree!

Oh Really?  So that American, Cadaver Dog Handler stood up in Court and admitted that Cadaver Dogs will react to pee pee in the absence of a Cadaver?  What a pillock.

The whole World wanted Casey Anthony to be convicted for something or another.  But rightly, she wasn't.

I don't know how much the dogs' findings had to do with that, but Judge Belvin Perry Junior wasn't half daft.  He demanded chapter and verse of the dogs' training and success rates.

That man will long go down in my history of what is right and proper.

More power to Jose Biaz.