Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[jassi]

I see little point in placing the blame anywhere. What is important is that the investigation progresses and delivers the proper result.

[Mr Gray]

I see little point in placing the blame anywhere. What is important is that the investigation progresses and delivers the proper result.

I don't agree... I think its important to highlight failures so that the same mistakes are not repeated

[gilet]

From Gilet:-
"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."






After agreeing with Gilet`s hopes that all issues associated with the alerts have been covered in the SY and PJ reviews since 2008, what do you make of SY`s recent comments about Madeleine having not been alive when she left the apartment?

Do you link the recent comments with any review of the issues surrounding the dog alerts ?

Why would the comments be introduced into the mix at this time?

Your misrepresentation of the comment from SY is sad.

The comment was not about the missing child "having not been alive". It was about the possibility of that being the case.

It has not recently been introduced as a possibility either. The possibility has always existed that Madeleine was alive when she left the apartment or that she was not. The dog alerts are one indication which may point to the latter.

Please also remember that the review was concluded some considerable time ago so I hardly think that has affected the most recent statement.

We have no way at all of knowing what may have prompted the most recent comments. It may be related to the dogs or it may be related to other intelligence regarding the known behaviour of suspects who SY are looking at, for example.

I will comment on the relationship between the two when there is some evidence that such a relationship exists. Till then it is simply speculation.

[gilet]

Thank you. He can explain everything in court.

Till then, his own report is the most authoritative document outlining his views.

And there he is adamant that the alerts are not evidence of Madeleine being dead, nor are they even definitive evidence that "cadaver scent" was found, simply that they suggest that possibility. Any other interpretation of the alerts without other evidence is simply incorrect.

[gilet]

By George she's got it! (with apologies to Bernard Shaw)

My view has never wavered on this matter since the very first post I made here.

[jassi]

Till then, his own report is the most authoritative document outlining his views.

And there he is adamant that the alerts are not evidence of Madeleine being dead, nor are they even definitive evidence that "cadaver scent" was found, simply that they suggest that possibility. Any other interpretation of the alerts without other evidence is simply incorrect.

Of course it doesn't really matter as SY will interpret  the report in whatever way they choose.

[gilet]

Of course it doesn't really matter as SY will interpret  the report in whatever way they choose.

Should they do so, I have no doubt they will, as I made very clear in the part of my post you underlined, be doing so based on "other evidence".

[gilet]

Sadly, no sign of one and all the while, the guilty go unpunished.

It is necessary to find the potentially guilty before a trial and punishment can go ahead.

It is clear that SY, having ruled out the most likely candidates - the McCanns and their friends, are now pursuing those they feel may be guilty and hopefully the person responsible for the crime will as you say be eventually punished.

No-one knows who is guilty yet so punishment is hardly likely to happen any time soon.

[Carew]

Your misrepresentation of the comment from SY is sad.

The comment was not about the missing child "having not been alive". It was about the possibility of that being the case.

It has not recently been introduced as a possibility either. The possibility has always existed that Madeleine was alive when she left the apartment or that she was not. The dog alerts are one indication which may point to the latter.

Please also remember that the review was concluded some considerable time ago so I hardly think that has affected the most recent statement.

We have no way at all of knowing what may have prompted the most recent comments. It may be related to the dogs or it may be related to other intelligence regarding the known behaviour of suspects who SY are looking at, for example.

I will comment on the relationship between the two when there is some evidence that such a relationship exists. Till then it is simply speculation.

Not really, Gilet............Had you taken the trouble to read my post to you ( 215),  before I typed this one............you would have seen that I said "may have.....etc"

What is sad is that you would leap on an accidentally missed word to deflect and waffle even more.

(Now that is sad!)

Let me put it this way...........What do you think stopped SY saying that Madeleine MAY not have been alive when she left the apartment before the recent revelation by Redwood?

[jassi]

Should they do so, I have no doubt they will, as I made very clear in the part of my post you underlined, be doing so based on "other evidence".

Can't say I bothered about what evidence they may have used.
As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is that they have publicly declared  that Madeleine may no longer be  alive and that she may have died in the apartment.
That is a big step forward in the investigation.

[Mr Gray]

Can't say I bothered about what evidence they may have used.
As far as I'm concerned, the important thing is that they have publicly declared  that Madeleine may no longer be  alive and that she may have died in the apartment.
That is a big step forward in the investigation.

Not in the slightest,,,that was accepted as a possibility in 2007...that's why the dogs were brought in...what other reason could there have been to have a cadaver dog search the appt

[jassi]

Not in the slightest,,,that was accepted as a possibility in 2007...that's why the dogs were brought in...what other reason could there have been to have a cadaver dog search the appt

I don't dispute that but it is the first time SY have publicly admitted such a possibility.

[Mr Gray]

I don't dispute that but it is the first time SY have publicly admitted such a possibility.

But its always been a possibility, just not discussed.  Have they admitted that an accident in the apt is a possibility and a  cover up by the parents...no...not even a possibility

[Estuarine]

The thread title is:
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

Well are they? We seem to be doing "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable in the McCann case" in isolation. A bit like the bloke who didn't know how many beans made 5; he could do it fountain pens but not in beans.

Couple of links for woofer fans and unfans. There is an amazing 15 page bibliography on one going back to 1964.
http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/files/applied-forensic-sciences/hochrein-bibliography/2011canines-and-scent.pdf
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2000/12/death-s-dogs-cadaver-search-canines.aspx
So when someone has worked their way through the 15 page bibliography and come to ................well you know which way this is going.
And I thought "it had been proven that cadaver dogs were notoriously unreliable" paraphrased again.

[Mr Gray]

The thread title is:
Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

Well are they? We seem to be doing "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable in the McCann case" in isolation. A bit like the bloke who didn't know how many beans made 5; he could do it fountain pens but not in beans.

Couple of links for woofer fans and unfans. There is an amazing 15 page bibliography on one going back to 1964.
http://mai.mercyhurst.edu/files/applied-forensic-sciences/hochrein-bibliography/2011canines-and-scent.pdf
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2000/12/death-s-dogs-cadaver-search-canines.aspx
So when someone has worked their way through the 15 page bibliography and come to ................well you know which way this is going.
And I thought "it had been proven that cadaver dogs were notoriously unreliable" paraphrased again.

Why should I bother with 15 pages when Grime has explained everything already