Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[stephen25000]

Actually, Anna, the wider quote which that extract comes from is also worth citing:

It should be noted the report made by the trainer /owner of these dogs. On this report it's mentioned the methodology of training:

'Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).

This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'

These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.

It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.

In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.

Note, in particular, the part I underline, right near the top.

Trainer/owner

Grime?

Or South Yorkshire Police?

What exactly are you an expert in , with reference to dog training and deployment ?

[Cariad]

Getting back to the direct terms of reference of this thread.

This is the uniform that Eddie and Keela would have been used to when working with Grime. This is the uniform which would have put them in "working mode". (please see my post above, #537).



Grime was not wearing any uniform in PDL. Is it not possible that the lack of uniform would have affected the working reliability of the dogs, another handler having indicated this possibility?

On a second issue related to the reliability of the alerts, is the claim by Martin Grime that the alert to cadaver odour by Eddie may not even have originated in the bedroom because of the way scent pools in a closed apartment over time not another serious cause for concern?  Is it even possible that if, as Martin Grime tells us, the alert was possibly from another room then it was a secondary alert to the blood detected in an adjacent room which was shown to have no connection whatsoever to the McCanns.

Gilet, my husband almost always wears a particular pair of shoes to walk the dogs. The second he lays his hands on the shoe, the dogs' behaviour changes. They know that they're going for a walk. My husband works shifts, so the dogs aren't walked at a particular time.

On the very rare occasion that he has worn different shoes, or has had to replace his 'dog walking' shoes, the dogs have not jumped up ready for walkies as he's lacing them up.

The second he touches their leads they react though. They don't refuse to leave the house cause he's wearing the wrong shoes! They're still cued to prance about with waggy tails, just at a slightly later point, i.e picking up the leads.

The idea that someone has to be wearing the right clothes is laughable to anyone who owns a dog. Or knows a dog. Or knows someone who knows a dog.

Work is a human concept.  Dogs like to be busy and engaged. An intelligent dog needs something to do. It isn't a job or work to them. It's fun!


Edited to add that Mr Grime failing to wear the correct clothing caused his dogs to be less reliable has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far.

[Benice]

It would be interesting to know why Grime felt it necessary to wear head to toe protective clothing in the garage but only a pair of gloves everywhere else.     Surely it is either imperative or it's not?

[ferryman]

It would be interesting to know why Grime felt it necessary to wear head to toe protective clothing in the garage but only a pair of gloves everywhere else.     Surely it is either imperative or it's not?

That's another question that's always intrigued me.

Would Grime have been happy about SYP knowing his modus operandi in PdL?

I somehow suspect he wouldn't

[Mr Moderator]

Indeed so the minutes of a meeting where a financial document was agreed could be used as evidence in a criminal court discussing the financial document. They would be considered to have the requisite evidential value to be used as supporting evidence. The original financial document being discussed would automatically have sufficient evidential value to be used in that court case.

So in exactly the same way, the dog alerts cannot be used as evidence until they are shown to have sufficient evidential value or reliability to be acceptable as evidence.

Anything which has no evidential value cannot be used as evidence.

As I am currently working in the field of the evidential reliability of certain types of computer generated material I am perfectly able to recognise the difference between the terms "evidential value/reliablity" and "evidence". The level of credence which can be given to the latter is dependent on the former.

If an alert or a document or a computer record has no evidential value/weight/reliability then it cannot be used as evidence. If it has evidential value then that material or alert or record can be used as evidence. In some cases certain material is introduced into a court case but its lack of evidential value must be explained where it is clear that there is none. It is not then possible to call that material by the term evidence or to call it an exhibit in a case. Where the evidential value of material is shown to exist (even if it is flimsy) then that material can be used as evidence or as an exhibit within a case. In certain instances it is introduced but with the proviso that the jury is made aware of the level of evidential reliability which it has.

Grime was explicit that the alerts without forensic corroboration had no evidential value at all and therefore could not be used as evidence. They are merely indications which relate to the matter.

This US case explains the reasoning.

http://www.internationallawoffice.com/newsletters/detail.aspx?g=df74cd39-728b-4d35-9720-b9502c3ca95c

That's the point and importantly the distinction which some are failing to make.  Martin Grime stated that the alerts 'had no evidential value' in the absence of 'forensic corroboration', he did not state they weren't evidence.  To take this one step further, if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.  The bottom line is, the alerts exist, they were documented and can be referred to in a criminal court if need be.

I will add this though.  The exercise was fraught with difficulties and obstacles, the least being the passage of time and contamination.  It achieved very little of anything and in my opinion was a complete fiasco of monumental proportion.

[ferryman]

That's the point and importantly the distinction which some are failing to make.  Martin Grime stated that the alerts 'had no evidential value' in the absence of 'forensic corroboration', he did not state they weren't evidence.  To take this one step further, if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.  The bottom line is, the alerts exist, they were documented and can be referred to in a criminal court if need be.

I will add this though.  The exercise was fraught with difficulties and obstacles, the least being the passage of time and contamination.  It achieved very little of anything and in my opinion was a complete fiasco of monumental proportion.

if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.

Correct!

Without that they have no evidential value.

Dog alerts played no part of the (successful) prosecution of Adrian Prout.

[Angelo222]

if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.

Correct!

Without that they have no evidential value.

Dog alerts played no part of the (successful) prosecution of Adrian Prout.

Depends what you mean.  The dogs alerts in the farm bungalow alerted police to the fact that she might be dead.  That in turn was but one factor which encouraged the CPS to take it to court.

Ref your point on evidence.  The dog evidence is a fact, it just doesn't disappear when it suits.  The value or as has been referred to, the evidential value, will vary depending on the forensics.  There is forensics in the case but inconclusive therefore leaving the entire case in limbo land.

[ferryman]

Depends what you mean.  The dogs alerts in the farm bungalow alerted police to the fact that she might be dead.  That in turn was but one factor which encouraged the CPS to take it to court.

Ref your point on evidence.  The dog evidence is a fact, it just doesn't disappear when it suits.  The value or as has been referred to, the evidential value, will vary depending on the forensics.  There is forensics in the case but inconclusive therefore leaving the entire case in limbo land.

It was onlyafter the trial had finished and Prout had been convicted that it came out that a cadaver dog (Eddie, as it happens) alerted in the investigation.

Before that, there was no mention of dog-involvement in the investigation.

[slartibartfast]

It would be true to say that the two best forensic dogs in the world found no evidence that maddie died in the appt

Actually, the dogs are not supposed to find evidence, they alert where evidence may be found. It is up to humans after that.

[Estuarine]

Why spend £000's on them then?  How many times has dog EVIDENCE been used in court to convict?  Without the dog evidence many a killer would have escaped justice.

I am with you Mr Moderator.
The first "cadaver" dog was deployed in 1974. So it is hardly some new kind of voodoo is it man?
Many US States have specialist EVRD Units; The FBI; The Royal Canadian Mounted Police; The US Military have used them for finding MIA's from the South East Asia conflict and so it goes on. Obviously a lot of this predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. These teams clearly know what they are at a little bit better than the pundits on here. If not, one helluva lot of cash has been wasted. You can imagine some US Marine "Gunny"  with his dogs in Vietnam paddy looking for MIAs saying to his dogs. "Well fellas we are being pulled out. Anonymous Limey civilians on a Limey website say we are wasting our time because some retired Portuguese detective.................."
So given that EVRDs are in wide use and have been in use since 1974, that these teams know what they are at and that it isn't exactly new technology, there are papers written by those who know what they are at on "alerts" and their meanings, why the argument on here about general reliability of the dog teams?. One rapidly comes to the conclusion it is about one particular man and two specific dogs, despite the thread title. If the pundits on here could once start arguing successfully about significant pre 2007 failure (in the plural ) of EVRDs and show that some authoritative body had closed it's EVRD facility because it was a failure then one might have a rethink. Until then the pundits on here are, forgive the expression, p***ing in the wind. I will not post a link because on a previous post I included a bibliography. It is fairly apparent what is being driven at on this thread but there appears to be a lack of bottle in actually expressing it in unequivocal terms.

[pathfinder73]

if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.

Correct!

Without that they have no evidential value.

Dog alerts played no part of the (successful) prosecution of Adrian Prout.

KILLER Adrian Prout's former fiancee has spoken of the chilling moment he finally admitted he murdered his wife.

Debbie Garlick, 41, had been engaged to the 49-year-old and even had a child with him, so convinced was she that he had not murdered his wife Kate.

But Ms Garlick told the Mail on Sunday of the shocking moment he confessed.

After failing a lie detector test, she told him: "If you have done something to her we need to know, so that her family can give her a proper burial."

He replied: "She's had one."

Ms Garlick told the newspaper: "There was no way I would ever cover up something like that. Sometimes I feel like such a fool for taking him on blind faith, but I'm not the only one.

"My entire family, his family, friends and everyone in the village where he lived, believed him. He was such a nice guy.

"Even after he failed a lie detector test I arranged for him to have in prison three months before he admitted his guilt, I still held on to the slim chance that it might have been faulty – because he kept insisting he was innocent.

"But I see now he's a cold and calculating man. What he did was pure evil and I can never forgive him, even as I find it hard to turn off my feelings for him. But I keep reminding myself that he is not the man he made me believe he was. He's put a lot of people – especially Kate's family – through hell."

She said: "At first, I could not believe this person I had fallen in love with had killed and buried someone. In the blink of an eye, he became a different person. I looked at him and thought, 'You disgust me'."

She fell pregnant with Evie while Prout was on bail in 2009. She said: "We were both delighted. Now I wonder if he was just using me to create this picture of a happy family man. I never questioned his innocence – he even fooled one of Kate's brothers for a time. I just saw this lovely man who was being treated badly by his wife and the police."

She added: "I've told Adrian that it's over between us. How could it be anything else? But he won't accept it. He's left a trail of devastation that had impacted on so many lives – Kate's family, mine, all the people who believed in him and, of course, he's ruined his own life."

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Debbie-Garlick-Adrian-Prout-confessed-killing/story-14369635-detail/story.html

[ferryman]

KILLER Adrian Prout's former fiancee has spoken of the chilling moment he finally admitted he murdered his wife.

Debbie Garlick, 41, had been engaged to the 49-year-old and even had a child with him, so convinced was she that he had not murdered his wife Kate.

But Ms Garlick told the Mail on Sunday of the shocking moment he confessed.

After failing a lie detector test, she told him: "If you have done something to her we need to know, so that her family can give her a proper burial."

He replied: "She's had one."

Ms Garlick told the newspaper: "There was no way I would ever cover up something like that. Sometimes I feel like such a fool for taking him on blind faith, but I'm not the only one.

"My entire family, his family, friends and everyone in the village where he lived, believed him. He was such a nice guy.

"Even after he failed a lie detector test I arranged for him to have in prison three months before he admitted his guilt, I still held on to the slim chance that it might have been faulty – because he kept insisting he was innocent.

"But I see now he's a cold and calculating man. What he did was pure evil and I can never forgive him, even as I find it hard to turn off my feelings for him. But I keep reminding myself that he is not the man he made me believe he was. He's put a lot of people – especially Kate's family – through hell."

She said: "At first, I could not believe this person I had fallen in love with had killed and buried someone. In the blink of an eye, he became a different person. I looked at him and thought, 'You disgust me'."

She fell pregnant with Evie while Prout was on bail in 2009. She said: "We were both delighted. Now I wonder if he was just using me to create this picture of a happy family man. I never questioned his innocence – he even fooled one of Kate's brothers for a time. I just saw this lovely man who was being treated badly by his wife and the police."

She added: "I've told Adrian that it's over between us. How could it be anything else? But he won't accept it. He's left a trail of devastation that had impacted on so many lives – Kate's family, mine, all the people who believed in him and, of course, he's ruined his own life."

http://www.gloucestercitizen.co.uk/Debbie-Garlick-Adrian-Prout-confessed-killing/story-14369635-detail/story.html

No clue what point, if any, you are trying to make.

Dias quoting Grime:

These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.

It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.

In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.

Only forensic evidence recovered from a dog alert is evidence admissible in court.

[Wonderfulspam]

No clue what point, if any, you are trying to make.

People lie their asses off , dumb tw..s believe them.  That's the message I got.

[ferryman]

Mark Harrison, from his recommendation of dog-deployment in the holiday apartments:

The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.

[pathfinder73]

No clue what point, if any, you are trying to make.

People lie their asses off , dumb tw..s believe them.  That's the message I got.