Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[gilet]

I have now managed to locate a video containing the comments from Martin Grime that I referred to above.

Both Eddie and Keela were deployed in Apartment 5A.

Grime indicates that the alert by the Cadaver dog cannot be attached to a precise location. He states that though the dog alerted in the corner the source of the scent could in fact be anywhere in the room.

I am certain that were that statement to be introduced in court it would make a very interesting discussion point because it is known that Keela alerted within a few metres of that same room and lawyers would want scientific evidence from Grime that there was no possibility that Keela's alert could not have been of the same scent source.

Where Keela alerted blood was in fact found, though it was never linked to the McCanns.

I cannot see that any court could allow the alert by Eddie a few metres away from where blood was found to stand as cadaver odour when Eddie also alerts to blood and Grime states that the precise source of Eddie's alerts cannot be determined.

See here for the comment at 23:15.

[icabodcrane]

No. Unlike you I am not seeking to determine a reason at all because I realise that attempting to do so is utterly futile as we do not have sufficient information on which to make that determination.

And unlike you I am also not deluding myself that other potential reasons exist. Some of those reasons being much more likely due to the fact that it would be bizarre if the Operation Grange team had only just managed to make the connection with the dogs who they have known about for a full four years.

I am not trying to substantiate anything. I am open to all possibilities and I am simply indicating that to exclude other possibilities that clearly do exist is pointless. I am not prepared to make a guess as to which is the actual reason.

I believe I have demonstrated that it is you who is illogically excluding other possible reasons and who having illogically excluded all other possibilities has resorted to guessing what Scotland Yard has based their comment on.

I'm excluding what exists, only,  in your imagination

There ARE  no known reasons   (  other than the cadaver dog alerts  )   on which Scotland Yard might be  basing their opinion that Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A,  are there ?

You are 'imagining'  there are    ...  that's all 

[gilet]

I'm excluding what exists, only,  in your imagination

There ARE  no known reasons   (  other than the cadaver dog alerts  )   on which Scotland Yard might be  basing their opinion that Madeleine may have died in apartment 5A,  are there ?

You are 'imagining'  there are    ...  that's all

There are no known reasons - correct.

You are trying to suggest that there is a known reason though. But you don't have the knowledge on which to base that claim. Only those involved in the actual case have that knowledge. You are merely guessing as to the reason they have now made that statement.

However there are other possible reasons which you are desperately seeking to deny.  I wonder why?

I have outlined some of those possible reasons.  They include new witness information (we know that SY have interviewed people recently), the records of the suspects they are currently pursuing (we know they have been recently doing this work), the interviews with the PJ which we know are ongoing.

I have not imagined them. I have not invented them. They exist. They have been commented on by Redwood, they have been reported in the press. Any one of these reasons could be the one which prompted the recent comment about potential death in the apartment.

You are deliberately trying to pretend they don't exist and that is not only illogical but it is rather silly.

It is you who has made a guess as to the reason. You have guessed that it is the dogs but you have  not provided any logical reason why it has taken Redwood and his team four whole years to make the link. I think that demonstrates that you cannot come up with a reason.

Unlike you I am not prepared to make a guess. I simply acknowledge there are a number of potential and real possibilities and am open to any one of them (or a combination) having been the prompt for the recent comment.

[icabodcrane]

There are no known reasons - correct.



However there are other possible reasons which you are desperately seeking to deny.  I wonder why?

Well  ...  wonder no more 

There are no  known  reasons,  other than the cadaver dog's alerts,   on which Scotland Yard  have based their conclusion that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A 

That is it 

You are scrambling around trying to come up with  something else     ...  something  'other'  than the dog alerts

There  IS  nothing 

...  except that which you are imagining

[gilet]

Well  ...  wonder no more 

There are no  known  reasons,  other than the cadaver dog's alerts,   on which Scotland Yard  have based their conclusion that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A 

That is it 

You are scrambling around trying to come up with  something else     ...  something  'other'  than the dog alerts

There  IS  nothing 

...  except that which you are imagining

I have done no scrambling.

I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that your belief that you KNOW the reasoning for Scotland Yards decision is simple guesswork.

I have demonstrated and (as you requested) listed other likely reasons why such a statement may have been made recently.

I have demonstrated that you are deliberately ignoring the other reasons that I have listed for you.

I have shown that there is no logical reason why, having known about the dogs for four years, only now would Scotland Yard make the connection between them and the death of Madeleine within the apartment. Indeed I have described that idea as rather silly which it is.

I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.

I have demonstrated that the idea of the death of Madeleine in the apartment is simply not new and was discussed within days of the disappearance  of the child.

I have explained that it is, in my opinion, far more likely that something which they have been working on in the recent past (not something imaginative but one of the many things that have been reported by Redwood himself) may have led to this new statement.

I will now add that there may in fact be no specific prompt for the statement other than as balance to the earlier appeals which have concentrated more on a living child. As we are not aware of anything which suggests either is a certainty perhaps it was simply a need to indicate that fact that prompted the announcement.

But for you to claim that you know with certainty the reason is simply ridiculous. Unless you have discussed it with the officers concerned it is a fact that you are simply guessing.

You tried to make me guess earlier but that simply is not my way of looking at things. I prefer to look for evidence and when none exists I remain open to all logical possibilities as I do over this statement.

There may be no specific reason or there may be a reason. That reason is not known by you or me no matter how much you may insist otherwise.

Your guess may be right. And it may be wrong.

Perhaps one day we will find out. Till then this conversation appears to be going nowhere because you are not prepared to accept that there are other potential reasons and have blinkered yourself to just one.

[Wonderfulspam]

I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.

No one has suggested that.

[gilet]

I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.

No one has suggested that.

Yes they have, by clear implication that is precisely what is being claimed here.

It has been stated by posters on this forum that this comment is a change in direction/emphasis for Scotland Yard.

It has also been stated that this comment was made on the basis of the dog alerts.

The clear implication is that this new direction in thinking has been caused by the dog alerts.

The fact that the dog alerts have been known to SY for a full four years is not being explained though.

We are being asked to believe that something they have known for four years has suddenly caused a change of emphasis in the case.

It is simply not credible.

[icabodcrane]

I have done no scrambling.

I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that your belief that you KNOW the reasoning for Scotland Yards decision is simple guesswork.

I have demonstrated and (as you requested) listed other likely reasons why such a statement may have been made recently.

I have demonstrated that you are deliberately ignoring the other reasons that I have listed for you.

I have shown that there is no logical reason why, having known about the dogs for four years, only now would Scotland Yard make the connection between them and the death of Madeleine within the apartment. Indeed I have described that idea as rather silly which it is.

I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.

I have demonstrated that the idea of the death of Madeleine in the apartment is simply not new and was discussed within days of the disappearance  of the child.

I have explained that it is, in my opinion, far more likely that something which they have been working on in the recent past (not something imaginative but one of the many things that have been reported by Redwood himself) may have led to this new statement.

I will now add that there may in fact be no specific prompt for the statement other than as balance to the earlier appeals which have concentrated more on a living child. As we are not aware of anything which suggests either is a certainty perhaps it was simply a need to indicate that fact that prompted the announcement.

But for you to claim that you know with certainty the reason is simply ridiculous. Unless you have discussed it with the officers concerned it is a fact that you are simply guessing.

You tried to make me guess earlier but that simply is not my way of looking at things. I prefer to look for evidence and when none exists I remain open to all logical possibilities as I do over this statement.

There may be no specific reason or there may be a reason. That reason is not known by you or me no matter how much you may insist otherwise.

Your guess may be right. And it may be wrong.

Perhaps one day we will find out. Till then this conversation appears to be going nowhere because you are not prepared to accept that there are other potential reasons and have blinkered yourself to just one.

Let's be honest here,  shall we  ? 

I have given a verifiable  fact  to support my opinion that Scotland Yard based their belief that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A   on the cadaver dog's alert   ....  the  'fact'  being  that the dog DID alert there    ( and Scotland Yard have knowledge of it  )

You,   on the other hand,  have offered an opinion based on nothing more than what you imagine   Scotland Yard  have knowledge of

You are desperately trying to deny that it was  the dog's alerts that  influenced Scotland Yard's thinking ... even though you have no verifiable or substantiated alternative

[Wonderfulspam]

Let's be honest here,  shall we  ? 

I have given a verifiable  fact  to support my opinion that Scotland Yard based their belief that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A   on the cadaver dog's alert   ....  the  'fact'  being  that the dog DID alert there    ( and Scotland Yard have knowledge of it  )

You,   on the other hand,  have offered an opinion based on nothing more than what you imagine   Scotland Yard  have knowledge of

You are desperately trying to deny that it was  the dog's alerts that  influenced Scotland Yard's thinking ... even though you have no verifiable or substantiated alternative

Yes, but if she writes really long posts then people might not notice.

[pathfinder73]

I have done no scrambling.

I have demonstrated beyond any doubt that your belief that you KNOW the reasoning for Scotland Yards decision is simple guesswork.

I have demonstrated and (as you requested) listed other likely reasons why such a statement may have been made recently.

I have demonstrated that you are deliberately ignoring the other reasons that I have listed for you.

I have shown that there is no logical reason why, having known about the dogs for four years, only now would Scotland Yard make the connection between them and the death of Madeleine within the apartment. Indeed I have described that idea as rather silly which it is.

I have asked you to explain why only now, after knowing about the dogs for four years, the experienced detectives at Operation Grange should suddenly realise that a possible cadaver alert in the apartment might indicate that Madeleine died there and you have demonstrably failed to offer any possible reason.

I have demonstrated that the idea of the death of Madeleine in the apartment is simply not new and was discussed within days of the disappearance  of the child.

I have explained that it is, in my opinion, far more likely that something which they have been working on in the recent past (not something imaginative but one of the many things that have been reported by Redwood himself) may have led to this new statement.

I will now add that there may in fact be no specific prompt for the statement other than as balance to the earlier appeals which have concentrated more on a living child. As we are not aware of anything which suggests either is a certainty perhaps it was simply a need to indicate that fact that prompted the announcement.

But for you to claim that you know with certainty the reason is simply ridiculous. Unless you have discussed it with the officers concerned it is a fact that you are simply guessing.

You tried to make me guess earlier but that simply is not my way of looking at things. I prefer to look for evidence and when none exists I remain open to all logical possibilities as I do over this statement.

There may be no specific reason or there may be a reason. That reason is not known by you or me no matter how much you may insist otherwise.

Your guess may be right. And it may be wrong.

Perhaps one day we will find out. Till then this conversation appears to be going nowhere because you are not prepared to accept that there are other potential reasons and have blinkered yourself to just one.

SY are not going to let us in on everything. You don't know what they really think/know whether it's today or 2  years ago. They only share with us what they want. But we know they've got rid of Tannerman (Jane nearly caught the abductor according to Gerry so that can't be good news) and Smithman is at the top of their most wanted (maybe that's better news).  And they are investigating all possibilities so they are left with no doubts on what really happened. They've always known about the cadaver scent alerts e.g. on the clothes. And they know nobody died in that apartment before 3 May 2007.

[gilet]

Sorry, I do know that the SY review started nearly four years ago and I can surmise that the review looked very carefully at the PJ files of which the dog reports are a major component. Are you suggesting that it might have taken the SY team 2 or more years to realise that there had been a cadaver dog alert in Apartment 5A. Sorry for the pun, but such a suggestion is 'barking'. I cannot imagine that any officer assigned to the case wasn't aware of the use of the dogs before the review began let alone during its first two years. They probably listened to the news back in 2007 too you know.

They may know that nobody died in Apartment 5A prior to May 2007 but it is perfectly possible that they do not have any indication of potential cross contamination from previous tenants because there is no record of any investigation into such tenants by the PJ. Perhaps it has been done since.

But your post has not in any way addressed the points I made in the post you were attempting to reply to.

We cannot know what prompted this new statement by SY as Icabodcrane pretends because we simply do not know. There are other possible sources which Redwood has talked about and which I have listed.

Such guesses by Icabodcrane and apparently yourself are futile because they are backed up by no evidence whatsoever. Only evidence based theories actually matter. Pure guesswork may be a starting point but it is no substitute for evidence and knowledge in the long run.

[icabodcrane]

Sorry, I do know that the SY review started nearly four years ago and I can surmise that the review looked very carefully at the PJ files of which the dog reports are a major component. Are you suggesting that it might have taken the SY team 2 or more years to realise that there had been a cadaver dog alert in Apartment 5A. Sorry for the pun, but such a suggestion is 'barking'. I cannot imagine that any officer assigned to the case wasn't aware of the use of the dogs before the review began let alone during its first two years. They probably listened to the news back in 2007 too you know.

They may know that nobody died in Apartment 5A prior to May 2007 but it is perfectly possible that they do not have any indication of potential cross contamination from previous tenants because there is no record of any investigation into such tenants by the PJ. Perhaps it has been done since.

But your post has not in any way addressed the points I made in the post you were attempting to reply to.

We cannot know what prompted this new statement by SY as Icabodcrane pretends because we simply do not know. There are other possible sources which Redwood has talked about and which I have listed.

Such guesses by Icabodcrane and apparently yourself are futile because they are backed up by no evidence whatsoever. Only evidence based theories actually matter. Pure guesswork may be a starting point but it is no substitute for evidence and knowledge in the long run.

Hang on

You say that Scotland Yard migh have  'other'  reasons for thinking Madeleine might have died in the apartment   (  reasons  other than the cadaver dog alerts  )  ....   only we can't  know  what those reasons might be because Scotland Yard don't  'tell'  us everything

Then you question why Scotland Yard have never appeared to consider the dog alerts before now 

...  but if you believe Scotland Yard  don't  'tell'  us everything then your question is redundant,  isn't it  ?

Or are you suggesting Scotland Yard are only obscure  when it comes to the question of why they think Madeleine might have died in the apartment  ...  whilst being as straight as a die  when it suits you to claim so  ?

[gilet]

Hang on

You say that Scotland Yard migh have  'other'  reasons for thinking Madeleine might have died in the apartment   (  reasons  other than the cadaver dog alerts  )  ....   only we can't  know  what those reasons might be because Scotland Yard don't  'tell'  us everything

Then you question why Scotland Yard have never appeared to consider the dog alerts before now 

...  but if you believe Scotland Yard  don't  'tell'  us everything then your question is redundant,  isn't it  ?

Or are you suggesting Scotland Yard are only obscure  when it comes to the question of why they think Madeleine might have died in the apartment  ...  whilst being as straight as a die  when it suits you to claim so  ?

I am suggesting no such thing.

A more careful reading of my post might mean you would realise that.

I have listed some of those potential reasons so your contention that we can't know what they are is rather silly.

Oh and I don't post redundant questions. Time is too precious.

[icabodcrane]

I am suggesting no such thing.

A more careful reading of my post might mean you would realise that.

I have listed some of those potential reasons so your contention that we can't know what they are is rather silly.

On the one hand,  you are saying  that there might be reasons  (  other than the cadaver dog's alerts  )  that have lead Scotland Yard  into believing Madeleine might have died in the apartment  ...  but they're just not telling  us 

Then,  on the other hand,  you are saying that if Scotland Yard had any reason to believe the dog alerts were significant then they would have  told  us

You're all over the place,  aren't you  ? 

[Mr Gray]

But... but... I don't understand? Isn't davel now saying that there was always a chance of Maddie (sic) Dying in the apartment and that sy saying that means nothing?


Mind.Blown.

thats exactly what I am saying Cariad