Sniffer Dogs ‘Can Hinder Police Work’
By surreywebmaster | 24/03/2011 - 09:41 | In The News
Police sniffer dogs used to find missing people and dead bodies “urgently” need better training and monitoring, according to an official report.
Sniffer dog Eddie was relieved of his police duties after complicating investigations
The Government’s National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) said specialist victim recovery dogs are not trained to approved standards, with no way of gauging their competence.
The NPIA reviewed the use of the specialist sniffer dogs two years ago, but its report has only now surfaced following a request by Sky News.
“There is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done,” the report states.
“Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers or record keeping of the success rate they achieve.”
The report added the dogs, which are trained to detect the smell of dead bodies, have “the potential to cause complications in an inquiry”.
“There is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment,” it concluded.
There is an urgent need to have national policy on police sniffer dogs’ training, accreditation and deployment.
National Policing Improvement Agency report
The review uses a kidnap investigation to highlight how dogs have tied up valuable police time.
The animals detected human remains in old furniture that had been bought from houses where the owner had died.
The use of victim recovery, or cadaver dogs, has proved to be controversial in a number of high-profile cases in recent years.
A South Yorkshire Police spaniel called Eddie was said to have sniffed out the “scent of death” at the Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey and the apartment from which Madeleine McCann disappeared in Portugal.
But in both cases nothing more was found and South Yorkshire Police say Eddie is no longer working with them.
Sniffer dogs hindered the police probe into Shannon Matthew’s disappearance
Victim recovery dogs from four different police forces were used during searches for kidnapped schoolgirl Shannon Matthews in Dewsbury in West Yorkshire in 2008.The dogs found evidence of dead bodies, but officers later discovered the corpses were nothing to do with her disappearance.
“The properties searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died,” according to the NPIA report.
“This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture.”
The Association of Chief Police Officers told Sky News it was consulting individual police forces and hoped to have national training standards for the dogs later this year.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Police-Sniffer-Dogs-Report-Says-No-Approved-Standards-Are-Complicating-Some-Probes/Article/201103415959107?lpos=UK_News_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15959107_Police_Sniffer_Dogs%3A_Report_Says_No
_________________
Ahh good old MSM again. Firstly, let's get one thing straight. Eddie was not relieved of his duties, this is yet again more hearsay! Martin took him when he retired in August 2007. Eddie lived with him, had trained him and knew him inside and out so once Martin retired it was a natural move for Eddie to make.
Secondly, Eddie was not used in the Shannon Matthews case but whichever way it goes, those dogs who alerted at the property did what they were trained to do! How are they supposed to know that the furniture they alerted to came from another property where someone had died? They alerted, it was up to police to then determine if those alerts meant that Shannon was dead. The dogs have no way of knowing who they are alerting to!! They did their job and it was established where the furniture had come from and so the alerts were explained. Tell me again just how the dogs failed?
Thirdly the McCann case. No-one has ever said that the dog alerts have been ruled out and only last week Andy Redwood suggested very strongly that they are still very much in play when he said there was a possibility that Madeleine was not alive BEFORE she left the apartment. He did not say she might not be alive. He made a point of indicating a timeline for such a possibility. Not finding a body does not make them wrong and we must not forget that forensics did not rule Madeleine in and nor did they rule her out. Given the excellent track record of the dogs, it is highly unlikely that Eddie was wrong, but it is up to the authorities to determine that one way or another. It cannot be categorically stated that the dogs were wrong in the McCann case. Whether they were or not will not be known until the case is resolved.
And finally HDLG. Once again the dogs did what they were trained to do. They found human remains and blood, they found what they were trained to detect. They have no way of knowing how old that bone is or if those milk teeth fell out or were extracted unnaturally, or if they came from a live or a dead body. They are simply trained to detect such things and it is up to police to do the rest. Remind me just how is he meant to have failed again?
It's said Eddie alerted to 'coconut' Eddie didn't alert to 'coconut' He alerted to what he was trained to alert to.....cadaver scent. He alerted to an area of ground where bones had been previously found by workman before laying concrete. Those bones had been binned but the ground that once contained them would still have been an area of interest to Eddie. So he alerted as we know and when the area was examined an object was found which was thought to be part of a child's skull but which later magically turned into a piece of coconut. Now I personally do not believe that it was coconut but if it was, the following makes perfect sense to me, as it also should to you.
'coconut husk is wood and wood will absorb odours. If the husk was in the presence of human remains material for years it will actually build up and retain large amounts of odour as a cumulative effect. The fact that the coconut is not human does not matter. It's the odour the dog alerts to, not the material on which the odour is deposited.' Remind me, just how are is he meant to have failed again?
Probably a good idea to watch this video too re HDLG.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbNv-kkKnQM It's claimed Eddie alerted to semen on tissues. He didn't, both he and Keela alerted to the tissues which means there was blood on them.
From the Op Rectangle Report
'VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
Base of an oak tree planted as a memorial to the two sons of Mr Hamon, Flat 2 Delborgho Lodge, Upper Clarendon Road, St Hellier. The cremated remains of the two adult sons had been previously scattered just under the surface of the ground and the tree planted as a permanent memorial together with a plaque. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
There being no other points of interest, intelligence led excavation of the site commenced to locate and investigate defensive positions by excavation, forensic examination and canine screening.'
And
'V/T 9 Re-enforced concrete machine gun post and protective trench, personnel shelter attached. Earth and debris removed by hand and plant machinery to allow access.
The forensic strategy was implemented with the following results.
EVRD – positive indication.
SOCO visual – positive.
Blood dog - positive indication.
Visual – positive
UV – negative (items removed prior to screening).
Quasar - negative
Positive indications confirmed as being recently deposited tissues used to clean up after sex by unknown persons. Offences not suspected at this stage. Retained as exhibit should there be future reports of offences. There will be no forensic submission at this stage.'
and just to re-emphasise that the dogs yet again get it right, another example of working in tandem from the same report
V/T 3 Re-enforced concrete gun emplacement (not a bunker), completely backfilled to prevent access.The fill was removed by hand to give access. A trench link to V/T 4 and V/T 6 was identified. The trench was excavated by plant machinery to complete the deposition search linked to bunker
(VT/4)
The forensic strategy was implemented with the following results.
EVRD – positive indication
Blood Dog – positive indication
Visual SOCO examination – positive
UV – positive
Quasar - positive
Positive indications are of a small human blood deposit confirmed as being accidental spillage by one of the search team.
Eddie was trained as follows - source
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm'The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.'
And Keela - source
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm'The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.'
Eddie and Keela were used in tandem as a fail safe method to eliminate any chance of false positives. Eddie's original training was to human blood and latterly and mostly to cadaver scent using pigs and human cadavers and Keela purely to detect human blood.
Ergo Eddie would be sent in first to a location as part of an investigation to check and if he alerted then Keela was sent in to see if she also alerted. If Keela also alerted then the alert was to blood as that is all that Keela is trained to detect. If she did not alert too then Eddie was alerting to cadaver scent.
In relation to the tissues found at VT/9 in HDLG both dogs alerted which means there was blood them, no matter how small it was and both dogs detected it as that is how they were trained. Both dogs alert = blood whereas Eddie on his own and no alert from Keela = cadaver scent. The tandem working of the dogs is what made them so reliable.
Martin's Rogatory statement
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm and the Op Rectangle Report
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html detail that all of the above is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire.
The purpose of the dog is to indicate the presence of human remains - It is for humans to determine their significance. So tell me again just how the dogs are supposed to have failed in HDLG?
The researcher from Sky really should have checked their facts first!
