Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[ferryman]

A second test was done on the toy hidden in the sideboard to confirm if it had cadaver scent. Eddie barked so there's your answer.

Kate also kept it close to her alerted pants.

You mean an item of clothing Eddie picked up in his mouth?

No dog attending a crime scene should ever pick stuff up in its mouth ...

[Mr Gray]

Given that until such time as one of the investigative bodies generates a revised thesis the ruling document is the PJ Archiving Report. It may be an opportune moment to look again at what this document said:
D – Dog searches and constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos
 
In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine's whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.
 
Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).
 
From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
 
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
4 – In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);
 
5 – In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);
 
6 – This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault – 59-DA-27 – that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
7 – Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
8 – The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
9 – After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
 
10 – It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
 
11 – It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
12 – Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
13 – This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.
 
The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.
 
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.
 
Martin Grime, the dogs' instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: "Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations"; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler's word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.
 
In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
 
It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between Madeleine's DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)



I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted quite extensive research with E.V.R.D in late 1990s. It might be worth looking at by those who are interested.
After all what are we trying to cast doubt on here? The principle of the technology (for want of a better expression) or two operators and two dogs. A much wider net needs to be cast to include all works ever carried out in this field if it is to be convincingly demonstrated that the "technology" is suspect. If it is two men and two dogs the motive is laid bare and all the chat is meaningless.

We all know the dogs alerted...the question is what do the alerts mean. In his statement Grime says that in his OPINION...the dogs alerts are SUGGESTIVE......that all seems very vague.

[Carana]

We all know the dogs alerted...the question is what do the alerts mean. In his statement Grime says that in his OPINION...the dogs alerts are SUGGESTIVE......that all seems very vague.

Well, yes. At the time, the alerts might have indicated that a body was nearby, in an attic, cellar, septic tank or whatever, in which case it would have beeen worth searching further... But there simply wasn't any evidence.

[Estuarine]

We all know the dogs alerted...the question is what do the alerts mean. In his statement Grime says that in his OPINION...the dogs alerts are SUGGESTIVE......that all seems very vague.

As usual you miss the entire point of the post, which is :the archiving report is the governing document. Whether you like it or not or think it vague or whatever is completely irrelevant. You should note that the governing document is not "Davel's extensive opinions as stated on the UK Justice Forum."

[Carana]

Do you seriously find the occasional moment of relief to be inexcusable?

Are you suggesting that they should never have smiled about anything, ever, in all these years? How many ordinary people suffering an ongoing nightmare have been snapped by photographers at every opportunity?

[ferryman]

Complete conjecture, stephen, no? These facial expressions could mean all sorts of things. Complex events and emotions at the time.

Add to the mix, doctored photographs ...

[jassi]

Kate knows what is the truth in respect of Kate and Gerry.

That is vastly different from knowing what happened.

Actually, she can only know the truth as regards herself - everything else is belief.

[John]

Posters are again reminded that flippant/off topic/argumentative/provocative/nasty/speculative/threatening/libellous comments have no place here and will be expunged on sight.

Warnings followed by suspensions will result if necessary.

[gilet]

As usual you miss the entire point of the post, which is :the archiving report is the governing document. Whether you like it or not or think it vague or whatever is completely irrelevant. You should note that the governing document is not "Davel's extensive opinions as stated on the UK Justice Forum."

And that same archival report goes on to explain very clearly that none of the traces alerted to by the dogs were later ratified in the laboratory. Indeed this very report tells us that none of the indications that led to the McCanns being made arguidos were later confirmed or consolidated.

Rather significant conclusions, in my opinion, which should not be ignored any more than the dog alerts themselves should be ignored.

[Mr Gray]

As usual you miss the entire point of the post, which is :the archiving report is the governing document. Whether you like it or not or think it vague or whatever is completely irrelevant. You should note that the governing document is not "Davel's extensive opinions as stated on the UK Justice Forum."

No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless

Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that

[pathfinder73]

No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless

Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that

An EVRD dog alerted inside 5A, in the garden and on clothes and at none of their friends apartments or Murat's and you don't know what that suggests?

"Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains."

[gilet]

No you miss the point...the document says the dogs alerted..we all agree with that...what good is an alert if no one knows what the alert signifies....its totally useless

Furthermore..it may be the governing document at that time...but times have changed...a bit like...themccanns are not suspects...but that could change...you might understand that

Indeed that is a very important point.

That Archival report was just that, the report of the case as in mid 2008 when it was archived.

Since then there have been years of review and further investigation by both the PJ and the SY units.

It would be quite remarkable if they have not in that time reviewed very, very carefully every single aspect of the dog alerts. It is perfectly possible as well that they have re-interviewed those involved with the dog searches to clarify any issues which may have arisen from the reviews and further investigations which have been done.

For example, it would be important to review the procedures used when collecting the clothing from the McCanns villa. From the videos it is clear that those clothes were not (as we would expect under UK evidence collection guidance) individually collected in separate bags. It would be important to know precisely which items were carried from the villa in which boxes to eliminate the possibility of cross-contamination.

The fact is that the dogs can only be reliable in their indications if the procedures used to deploy them are correctly followed and if the procedures used to preserve the locations and evidence they are asked to investigate are properly followed.  I would be amazed if these issues were not a focus in the SY and PJ reviews as they are so important.

[Mr Gray]

An EVRD dog alerted inside 5A, in the garden and on clothes and at none of their friends apartments or Murat's and you don't know what that suggests?

"Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains."

You can spin all you like but Martin Grime is not as confident as you about what the alerts mean...but what does he know..hes only the expert

[gilet]

An EVRD dog alerted inside 5A, in the garden and on the clothes and at none of their friends apartments or Murat's and you don't know what that suggests?

"Eddie is an enhanced victim recovery dog and is specially trained to detect the scent of human remains."

Well I know what it suggests. It suggests that there may have been "cadaver odour" present at those places and on those close. As Martin Grime points out, it does not prove that there was such odour present in any of those places.

It is also vital to remember that there had been no preservation of the scene (either the apartment or the garden) prior to the dogs being deployed and therefore no way of knowing whether the alerts there (if they did accurately point to "cadaver odour" being present) related to the McCanns.

Nor is there any evidence to show that the alerts on the clothes could not have been due to cross-contamination as there was no attempt made to keep the clothing separate.

I would hope that all these issues have been covered by both the SY and PJ reviews of the case since 2008. I would be very surprised if they have not been.

[pathfinder73]

You can spin all you like but Martin Grime is not as confident as you about what the alerts mean...but what does he know..hes only the expert

Martin Grime may tell us all one day in court what he really thinks those alerts by Eddie indicated i.e. cadaver scent.