Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Benice]

Accusing Eddie at being crap at his job again. The other day it was Eddie taking 20 minutes to alert and now this.

Completely untrue.  How can saying Eddie was a normal dog be a criticism of his skills as a sniffer dog?   I have never had anything but admiration for the dogs, and have never questioned the validity of their alerts.   What more do you want?

[John]

For the record Martin Grime has rightly never claimed that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent in Praia da Luz, he always correctly stated that the alerts were indicative or suggestive of cadaver scent.  As it stands the only conclusion one can deduce from the deployment of the dogs in PdL is one of neutrality since forensic science failed to corroborate the findings one way or another.

For his part, Dr Amaral had his own interpretation of the results and wrongly claimed that the dogs had found the scent of death. How or why he came to this conclusion is still the subject of much speculation.

On the job - EVRD Eddie alerts at the driver's door of the McCann's hire car.

[icabodcrane]

Questions asked about Martin Grtime are perfectly valid. I have made no claims about him.

I await the evidence for your claims though. It will be very interesting to see if you can provide any or if you were simply making a statement about the payment for which you have no proof whatsoever.

John 

I think it is time you clarified that our member,  Serendipity,  has   established a credible connection with Martin Grime

This member has, kindly,  shared that information with me,  and  if that same information has been shared with you  too,   then please speak up and offer your support 

I'm sorry,  Serendipity,  for breaking a confidence,  but I feel it is necessary  that your contribution is recognised as valid

[John]

John 

I think it is time you clarified that our member,  Serendipity,  has   established a credible connection with Martin Grime

This member has, kindly,  shared that information with me,  and  if that same information has been shared with you  too,   then please speak up and offer your support 

I'm sorry,  Serendipity,  for breaking a confidence,  but I feel it is necessary  that your contribution is recognised as valid

Yes, Serendipity is 100% genuine and is well placed to answer questions about the deployment of the dogs Eddie and Keela.

[Carew]

Benice:-
I agree Eleanor.   

Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner.    IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while

Did the handler support your and Eleanor`s conclusions about the dog`s behaviour when deployed in this case ...........(or are they again, simply the opinions of amateurs who think they know better?)

Did the handler give the dog "treats" after alerts in 5A and elsewhere?
Are you implying that an alert in the apartment meant that a treat or praise would ensue?

[/b]

Perhaps one of you could clarify your points.

Was the dog given treats for alerting in the apartment and was excited at the prospect?

If true, wouldn`t this affect the dog`s accuracy?

( I did ask earlier, but Eleanor has been rather busy tonight.)

[Benice]

Benice:-
I agree Eleanor.   

Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner.    IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while
[/b]

Perhaps one of you could clarify your points.



Was the dog given treats for alerting in the apartment and was excited at the prospect?

If true, wouldn`t this affect the dog`s accuracy?

( I did ask earlier, but Eleanor has been rather busy tonight.)

I'm not quite sure what you mean Carew - but

The dogs are trained with the use of rewards (treats).  Have you never watched the numerous TV progs about sniffer dogs at airports who are given their 'reward' after successfully identifying drugs etc etc.?   the reward is always given afterwards and not periodically during their task.

Those dogs have no idea it is drugs they are alerting to - just an odour they have been trained to recognise.

From memory so I could be completely wrong, but didn't Martin Grime explain that the reason a dog was so interested in what was behind a piece of furniture was because it was a ball - which had been used as a reward during training?     

[Mr Gray]

For the record Martin Grime has rightly never claimed that Eddie alerted to cadaver scent in Praia da Luz, he always correctly stated that the alerts were indicative or suggestive of cadaver scent.  As it stands the only conclusion one can deduce from the deployment of the dogs in PdL is one of neutrality since forensic science failed to corroborate the findings one way or another.

For his part, Dr Amaral had his own interpretation of the results and wrongly claimed that the dogs had found the scent of death. How or why he came to this conclusion is still the subject of much speculation.

On the job - EVRD Eddie alerts at the driver's door of the McCann's hire car.

its good to see John agrees with me..Grime does not confirm that the alerts are to cadaver ...what more is there to say

[Mr Moderator]

its good to see John agrees with me..Grime does not confirm that the alerts are to cadaver ...what more is there to say

Victim recovery dog handlers will never state that their dog found a cadaver scent because its more than their jobs worth.  The key word is 'suggestive' and that is as far as they can go in the absence of a cadaver or cadaver remains being found.  As occurred in Jersey, the dogs alerted to contaminants in the soil rather than a cadaver.  Hopefully readers will begin to realise that Eddie's alerts in Praia da Luz in August 2007 cannot be taken to mean that Madeleine died there.

[Mr Moderator]

It was claimed yesterday that Eddie was in some way responsible for finding murdered schoolgirl Jodi Jones' body.  I don't know where this nonsense originates but it is totally false.

Jodi Jones' remains were found by her then boyfriend Luke Mitchell and Stephen Kelly who both had gone over a wall following an alert by the Mitchell family dog Mia.  At the time Mitchell found the body of Jodi he was accompanied on the search by Jodi's sister Janine,  Janine's boyfriend Stephen Kelly and her gran Alice Walker.  EVRD Eddie played no part in finding Jodi.

Another myth dispelled.

[Carew]

Benice:-
I agree Eleanor.   

Eddie didn't know that what he did was 'work' - to him it was something he did which led to lots of praise and a treat from his owner.    IMO he would naturally be excited at that prospect - especially in the first few moments after being released from being confined in his cage for a while
[/b]

Perhaps one of you could clarify your points.


Was the dog given treats for alerting in the apartment and was excited at the prospect?

If true, wouldn`t this affect the dog`s accuracy?

( I did ask earlier, but Eleanor has been rather busy tonight.)

I'm not quite sure what you mean Carew - but

The dogs are trained with the use of rewards (treats).  Have you never watched the numerous TV progs about sniffer dogs at airports who are given their 'reward' after successfully identifying drugs etc etc.?   the reward is always given afterwards and not periodically during their task.

Those dogs have no idea it is drugs they are alerting to - just an odour they have been trained to recognise.

From memory so I could be completely wrong, but didn't Martin Grime explain that the reason a dog was so interested in what was behind a piece of furniture was because it was a ball - which had been used as a reward during training?   

Carew:-

Thankyou, Benice....Here`s what I mean......

(and yes, I have watched videos, read reports,etc. .....Please leave out the patronising assumptions that given access to your intepretations / assessments of reports and videos, we will all "see the light."  These superior asides seem part and parcel of the entrenched mind-set brought over from your like-minded groups, in which abusing and educating the numpties for a long row of applauding smilies is the norm.)


Isn`t it a matter of accuracy to be specific, rather than post an observation which implies that an excited dog who has been trained with treats will be anticipating receiving them if he alerts?

( By the way, being "interested in a ball" is not the same as an alert.)

 Is that clearer?

Do you feel that it is treats and praise which motivated the EVRD to alert?

This needs clarifying because it implies that if he doesn`t alert ........there`ll be no treaties = disappointed doggie.

You see, I feel that there is far more to this than your " don`t you see the light, statements of the obvious"......which taken to their conclusion means there is no point at all in deploying the dogs.

[Mr Moderator]

Animals are routinely trained on the basis of treats and/or praise.  An animal has to have an incentive to want to work or as they probably consider it, play.   What is being suggested is that the dog will in some way take advantage of its handler by giving false alerts in order to get treats.  A dog does not have the mental capability to plan such a manoeuvre.  Humans do it but not dogs.

ps if dogs did have the mental faculty to mislead I fear they wouldn't even get out the door in a morning.

Another myth dispelled.

[Carew]

Animals are routinely trained on the basis of treats and/or praise.  An animal has to have an incentive to want to work or as they probably consider it, play.   What is being suggested is that the dog will in some way take advantage of its handler by giving false alerts in order to get treats.  A dog does not have the mental capability to plan such a manoeuvre.  Humans do it but not dogs.

ps if dogs did have the mental faculty to mislead I fear they wouldn't even get out the door in a morning.

Another myth dispelled.

Yes, I feel that it is misleading to imply that the EVRD was anticipating a treat when he excitedly entered the investigation site and therefore might "fake" to get it...........The implication is there, even though it might not be cynically intended by the poster.

I have no problem at all accepting that the alerts may not have indicated for certain, in any way, that a little girl died in that apartment and was transported in a hire car..... There`s no conclusive evidence.

There is actually no point in putting out misleading implications and slurs, though........because they are so "challengeable" and in the end one questions the motive behind them.

[Estuarine]

If one accepts that the woofers will only do anything because they are expecting a treat , that would call into question the use of K9s in any kind of search function as they would alert to anything that would give them a bonio quickest. Assuming of course that the anthropomorphism suggested by some posters is true. We could start a thread on that; jeez no I was only being sarcastic
I think in the attempts to discredit one man and two dogs some posters are losing sight of where their logic is leading with respect to the use of dogs generally.

[Carew]

If one accepts that the woofers will only do anything because they are expecting a treat , that would call into question the use of K9s in any kind of search function as they would alert to anything that would give them a bonio quickest. Assuming of course that the anthropomorphism suggested by some posters is true. We could start a thread on that; jeez no I was only being sarcastic
I think in the attempts to discredit one man and two dogs some posters are losing sight of where their logic is leading with respect to the use of dogs generally.

Oh thank Gawd you`re not being serious about another dog-fest!..............(I don`t need encouraging.)

[Mr Gray]

If one accepts that the woofers will only do anything because they are expecting a treat , that would call into question the use of K9s in any kind of search function as they would alert to anything that would give them a bonio quickest. Assuming of course that the anthropomorphism suggested by some posters is true. We could start a thread on that; jeez no I was only being sarcastic
I think in the attempts to discredit one man and two dogs some posters are losing sight of where their logic is leading with respect to the use of dogs generally.

I think what posters have lost sight of is the meaning of the alerts...which have been explained by john