Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Mr Gray]

It's a statement.  Martin Grime will have his own opinion as to what exactly Eddie alerted to.

Isn't it just a tad coincidental that Martin Grimes EVRD alerted to the possibility of a death in apartment 5a and now we have Redwood for the very first time admitting that Madeleine might have died in that very apartment.

You need to read the statement again and you will see that Grime is sating his OPINION

Secondly....you feel that two incidents that happened seven years apart must be connected and cannot be coincidental is plainly bizarre

[stephen25000]

You need to read the statement again and you will see that Grime is sating his OPINION

Secondly....you feel that two incidents that happened seven years apart must be connected and cannot be coincidental is plainly bizarre

Why bizarre ?

Unless Redwood has had his head stuck in sand for 7 years, he would be blatantly aware people would make the obvious links.

[Mr Gray]

Watch out for a long convoluted story about how you have misunderstood it and you are a fool for doing so and he was right all along because ......................................well you make up the rest. 

Wrong again...you are making a habit of it...reply was 7 words

[jassi]

You need to read the statement again and you will see that Grime is sating his OPINION

Secondly....you feel that two incidents that happened seven years apart must be connected and cannot be coincidental is plainly bizarre

Why does it matter either way? What is significant is that he has recently said it and hopefully will elaborate further as events develop.

[Mr Gray]

Why does it matter either way? What is significant is that he has recently said it and hopefully will elaborate further as events develop.

I agree...but posters are trying to imply that the fact that SY have raised this point is because they accept the dog's alerts as proof of cadaver...something even grime does not claim

[jassi]

I agree...but posters are trying to imply that the fact that SY have raised this point is because they accept the dog's alerts as proof of cadaver...something even grime does not claim

And there was I thinking that the argument was about some posters claiming that the dogs alert  had been taken into account by Redwood, while  others  were desperate to dispel any such suggestion, for reasons unknown.

300 odd posts over such trivia - amazing

[Estuarine]

And there was I thinking that the argument was about some posters claiming that the dogs alert  had been taken into account by Redwood, while  others  were desperate to dispel any such suggestion, for reasons unknown.

300 odd posts over such trivia - amazing

And scarcely a one that addresses the thread title "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?"
 >@@(*&). Have you noticed there are some questions that McCann supporters will never address?

[jassi]

And scarcely a one that addresses the thread title "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?"
 >@@(*&). Have you noticed there are some questions that McCann supporters will never address?

Oh yes, many times.

[Mr Gray]

And scarcely a one that addresses the thread title "Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?"
 >@@(*&). Have you noticed there are some questions that McCann supporters will never address?

the question has been answerred......several times....if their is a body....cadaver dogs will find it,,,very reliable...I have already posted this...the problem arises when there is no body...what do the alerts indicate...even grime doesnt give a straight answer...so once again...you are wrong

[Estuarine]

the question has been answerred......several times....if their is a body....cadaver dogs will find it,,,very reliable...I have already posted this...the problem arises when there is no body...what do the alerts indicate...even grime doesnt give a straight answer...so once again...you are wrong

Well I guess you have a problem with both reading and comprehension then. Your post addresses neither of the issues I raised.
We get the bog standard davel response "you are wrong" without any attempt to substantiate your claim mainly because you are unable to substantiate very much of what you do say.

[Carew]

the question has been answerred......several times....if their is a body....cadaver dogs will find it,,,very reliable...I have already posted this...the problem arises when there is no body...what do the alerts indicate...even grime doesnt give a straight answer...so once again...you are wrong

That doesn`t really make sense............If there is a body, then a cadaver dog wouldn`t be needed to find it, would it?

(Do you think the dog might sometimes pass the body by, demonstrating its unreliability?)

[Serendipity]

I have now managed to locate a video containing the comments from Martin Grime that I referred to above.

Both Eddie and Keela were deployed in Apartment 5A.

Grime indicates that the alert by the Cadaver dog cannot be attached to a precise location. He states that though the dog alerted in the corner the source of the scent could in fact be anywhere in the room.

I am certain that were that statement to be introduced in court it would make a very interesting discussion point because it is known that Keela alerted within a few metres of that same room and lawyers would want scientific evidence from Grime that there was no possibility that Keela's alert could not have been of the same scent source.

Where Keela alerted blood was in fact found, though it was never linked to the McCanns.

I cannot see that any court could allow the alert by Eddie a few metres away from where blood was found to stand as cadaver odour when Eddie also alerts to blood and Grime states that the precise source of Eddie's alerts cannot be determined.

See here for the comment at 23:15.

You clearly missed the part where Keela did not alert by the wardrobe then? How many times does it have to be spelled out to you?  Eddie was trained to detect cadaver scent and blood whereas Keela was only trained to detect blood so that throws your theory completely out of the window. 

Martin also says this regarding Eddie's alert by the wardrobe:

'I would say it's positive for the things that he is trained to find' 

Given what Martin says above, what does the fact that only Eddie alerted by the wardrobe but Keela didn't but both dogs alerted behind the sofa tell you?

Also, as you clearly have no understanding of cadaver scent pooling I'm sure you will find this an interesting read :)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WTXuc7BjA-QC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=scent+cone+cadaver+dogs&source=bl&ots=XREMMLEHza&sig=byZDj6-I1NNSu4UVt29qwhm9JAY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=q7c2U4yFFeev0QXMzoHYDw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=scent%20cone%20cadaver%20dogs&f=false

[Carana]

Have a listen to this conversation with Dean Beers which is specifically discussing the case of missing baby Lisa Irwin in 2011 in which he explains the average time for a cadaver dog  hit is about 3 hours but that timescale can be reduced based factors such as environment temp and body size, so a hit on a child would be much sooner.

http://rmriinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/dean_beers_conversation.mp3

Particularly interesting around 14 mins in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Lisa_Irwin

Thanks for that link.

How many VOCs would have been present in 5A, originating from a deceased child's body, within that timeframe, on no identified porous material in 5A but which would have still been discernible to a dog 3 months later in an apartment that had been occupied (and therefore aired) by numerous post-disappearance police, occupants, OC staff and possible guests?

Another question: which VOCs would not be compatible with any irrelevant alert?

[Mr Gray]

Well I guess you have a problem with both reading and comprehension then. Your post addresses neither of the issues I raised.
We get the bog standard davel response "you are wrong" without any attempt to substantiate your claim mainly because you are unable to substantiate very much of what you do say.

Another empty claim..desperately trying to score points...everything I am saying here is simply quoted from Grime and is therefore substantiated....

I will try and make my response a little simpler for you to understand..

Victim detection and evidence search dogs are reliable at finding evidence if it is present....the question that arises then is what do their alerts mean if no evidence is found..is that simple enough for you

[pathfinder73]

Then it's up to the police to find other evidence to corroborate the dogs evidence. And Smithman is their most wanted