Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 340734 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Anna

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #345 on: March 29, 2014, 02:54:44 PM »
Start getting your evidence then on how the clothes got contaminated? Locate the cadaver? Tell me who touched it? Eddie alerted a cadaver being inside 5A where the clothes were - the police may connect the two for some strange reason and that the cadaver was a person who hasn't been seen since 3 May 2007.

Since cadaver scent only lasts a month apparently, I would say that it was an occupier after the McCann's moved to the villa, however they also alerted to some clothing from the Villa, all from one box.

Also the mcCanns moved in with the Paynes after the disappearance of Maddie. They had Clothes, with them which would have come from 5A wardrobe and yet there was no alerts in that apartment.
It doesn't make sense at all!
 
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline John

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #346 on: March 29, 2014, 03:01:54 PM »
Indicators, not evidence.

I am confusing nothing.

To be evidence things must by definition be evidential.

That much is perfectly clear from Grime's own report. It needs no interpretation by any go-between.

Grime has already commented in public about the matter in his report, where it is his careful differentiation between the terms which I am quoting.

Stop waffling gilet, evidence is tangible and available in the dog alerts.  Mr Grime never stated that the dog deployments wasn't evidence, this is merely your own interpretation.  Just in the same way you failed to understand that he was employed by SYP when he undertook the dog tests but was retired when he wrote the report about them.  Jeez you are hard work.   @)(++(*
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #347 on: March 29, 2014, 03:17:37 PM »
You obviously confuse the meaning and are construing two different terms.  Evidence and evidencial reliability are not the same thing.  The work done by the dogs, the reports and the videos are ALL evidence whether you like it or not and will be 'used in evidence' at a later time if necessary.  Mr Grime knows this very well thus why he is unable to comment publicy on the case. QED

Ps  evidence is not proof!
  so what does evidential reliability mean...educate us john

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #348 on: March 29, 2014, 03:23:26 PM »
  so what does evidential reliability mean...educate us john

In Scotland, uncorroborated dog alerts are allowed as evidence.

In England, they are not.

I'm not sure even Scottish courts would allow anything from PdL ...

Offline Anna

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #349 on: March 29, 2014, 03:43:24 PM »
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2007, at 6:11 PM ET

The parents of Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who went missing in Portugal in May, were officially named suspects on Sept. 7 by Portuguese police. The change came after developments in the case, including sniffer dogs detecting the "smell of death" on Madeleine's Cuddle Cat toy and her mother's clothes. They did not, however, find a body. Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?

Not really—especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene. Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it's much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone. In that case, they can pick up the scent from small amounts of body tissue, like a blood stain or nail clippings, or even from materials that came into contact with the tissue. But in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There's speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance—which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It's not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother's clothes for all that time.

Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.

The dogs couldn't necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine's body had been in recent contact with her mother's clothes. Since they didn't turn up any actual remains,
investigators had to rely on the "smell of death" itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can't be certain that the animals didn't make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)

Cadaver dogs learn to spot the "smell of death" and find its source during the training process, which involves exposing them to either actual human remains—blood, teeth, bones—or pseudoscent, an artificial substance that re-creates the death odor. (One chemical company markets several pseudoscent formulas for training cadaver dogs—recently dead, post-decomposition, and drowning victim.) The dogs also learn to differentiate human remains from animal remains.

A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.

Explainer thanks Maria Claxton of the South Carolina Search and Rescue Dog Association, Larry Myers of the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Andrew Rebmann of K9 Specialty Search Associates.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/zahrabaker.html
“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline Carew

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #350 on: March 29, 2014, 03:59:43 PM »
You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods.  There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.

A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.

Did the EVRD alert to every item in the box, ..........or just the 3 items you mention?

Why wasn`t there an alert to every single item in the cross-contaminated slap-dash box?

Could there be rather more to the cross-contamination issue than you think?

Online Wonderfulspam

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #351 on: March 29, 2014, 04:05:36 PM »
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2007, at 6:11 PM ET

The parents of Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who went missing in Portugal in May, were officially named suspects on Sept. 7 by Portuguese police. The change came after developments in the case, including sniffer dogs detecting the "smell of death" on Madeleine's Cuddle Cat toy and her mother's clothes. They did not, however, find a body. Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?

Not really—especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene. Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it's much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone. In that case, they can pick up the scent from small amounts of body tissue, like a blood stain or nail clippings, or even from materials that came into contact with the tissue. But in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There's speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance—which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It's not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother's clothes for all that time.

Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.

The dogs couldn't necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine's body had been in recent contact with her mother's clothes. Since they didn't turn up any actual remains,
investigators had to rely on the "smell of death" itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can't be certain that the animals didn't make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)

Cadaver dogs learn to spot the "smell of death" and find its source during the training process, which involves exposing them to either actual human remains—blood, teeth, bones—or pseudoscent, an artificial substance that re-creates the death odor. (One chemical company markets several pseudoscent formulas for training cadaver dogs—recently dead, post-decomposition, and drowning victim.) The dogs also learn to differentiate human remains from animal remains.

A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.

Explainer thanks Maria Claxton of the South Carolina Search and Rescue Dog Association, Larry Myers of the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine, and Andrew Rebmann of K9 Specialty Search Associates.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/zahrabaker.html



The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)

Oh goodness me yes, how right those attorneys were in that particular case.

Jeanette Zapata was found alive safe & well, not a scratch on her, an absolute picture of health she was, radiant, full of beans & the joys of spring, there was no pushing up daisies for her, absolutely not , no siree.

But wait what, what's this?

On Oct. 11, 1976, Eugene Zapata hit his wife on the head with a rectangular paperweight, then strangled her until his hands hurt. He wrapped her body in a tent and buried it.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/zapata-admits-killing-wife-gets-years-the-former-madison-man/article_3f7a7f4f-cb83-5869-b9c6-23532bc49a4e.html#ixzz2xMtGJpQI
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 04:31:45 PM by Wonderfulspam »
Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline John

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #352 on: March 29, 2014, 04:08:34 PM »
Cadaver odour isn't tangible.  You can smell it but you can't touch it.

Did I say it was?  You are getting as bad as gilet as construing comments.  The reports, the photographs and the videos relating to the dogs are all tangible evidence.  All evidence which can be used in court just as has happened in the McCann v Amaral libel trial.  In fact some people might not realise that cadaver odour is now collected by a machine for forensic analysis. 

An interesting fact worth noting.  It has not yet been possible to create cadaver odour by artificial means.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 04:12:03 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carew

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #353 on: March 29, 2014, 04:31:30 PM »
Well it clearly matters as it was brought up by those trying to use it to suggest that the dog alerts were significant. It is being used in that way in this thread about the dogs. Actually without any proof that the dog alerts were the reason it is almost certainly off topic as well.

But the real reason it matters is that it is so illogical to try to persuade people that such old information can be a trigger for a recent change of emphasis without offering a single explanation why that might be.

That information has always been known so is not likely to have caused any change of direction.

Logically then there has either been no change of direction in SY thinking or if this statement is evidence (and that in itself is not proven) of a change in direction of thinking then something else more recent has been the trigger.

Perhaps you could return to post 308 by icabodcrane......From where you left off in the early hours of the morning..........and continue the debate from there, rather than re-hashing opinions you`ve possibly already posted.

It makes sense to continue from there ...........as well as being courteous to take the trouble to read back through posts , as you suggest others do.

Offline Carew

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #354 on: March 29, 2014, 04:34:20 PM »
The debate was very interesting at that point, wasn`t it Gilet?


Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #355 on: March 29, 2014, 04:42:11 PM »
Did I say it was?  You are getting as bad as gilet as construing comments.  The reports, the photographs and the videos relating to the dogs are all tangible evidence.  All evidence which can be used in court just as has happened in the McCann v Amaral libel trial.  In fact some people might not realise that cadaver odour is now collected by a machine for forensic analysis. 

An interesting fact worth noting.  It has not yet been possible to create cadaver odour by artificial means.

"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #356 on: March 29, 2014, 04:48:10 PM »
You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods.  There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.

A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.

So from what you are saying eddie could be alerting to the scent of blood in an area where there is no blood


« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 04:52:56 PM by davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #357 on: March 29, 2014, 04:56:14 PM »
"My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

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

 So Grime's professional OPINION is on record...anyone who thinks he could walk into court...give a different OPINION and retain any credibility is a complete........I'll leave that to you

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #358 on: March 29, 2014, 04:58:42 PM »
Why would he give a different opinion in court? It's up to the police to corroborate his dogs evidence.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Carew

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #359 on: March 29, 2014, 05:00:14 PM »
I have no idea why you are introducing such examples of evidence. The whole point of my argument it that such old information is hardly likely to have been the trigger for any recent change of emphasis by SY (presuming that such a change has occured anyway).

As to you considering that bothering to read back to follow the thread properly and read the information I provided earlier as wasting your time. Sorry. I spent my time providing the information once. I don't intend to waste my time providing that same evidence for someone who simply cannot be bothered to follow the thread properly or is too lazy to read the information offered.

Yes,  the emboldened part, concerning your argument concerning SY and the old information was actually debated earlier on in the thread...........before post 308, from whence you stopped.