Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Estuarine]

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

It isn't any clearer. So best leave it perhaps.
Far from trying to score cheap points I am asking you why you seek to limit the topic to Grime when the thread topic is far wider reaching. Why not read some of the bibliography I posted yesterday? you may then find answers to your questions.
The "I cant be arsed" attitude you expressed yesterday would seem to indicate you do not wish to increase your knowledge on the subject.
Don't bother to reply this is going nowhere as usual.

[gilet]

Let's be honest here,  shall we  ? 

I have given a verifiable  fact  to support my opinion that Scotland Yard based their belief that Madeleine might have died in apartment 5A   on the cadaver dog's alert   ....  the  'fact'  being  that the dog DID alert there    ( and Scotland Yard have knowledge of it  )

You,   on the other hand,  have offered an opinion based on nothing more than what you imagine   Scotland Yard  have knowledge of

You are desperately trying to deny that it was  the dog's alerts that  influenced Scotland Yard's thinking ... even though you have no verifiable or substantiated alternative

Sorry that is not correct. I have given verifiable facts from the statements of Redwood which show that the reasons I proffered exist.

Those reasons are clearly also known to SY.

Your guess as to which particular knowledge sparked the recent comment is no more than that, a guess.

When you lift your blinkers and realise that not everything revolves round the dogs then maybe you will understand.

[gilet]

SY are not going to let us in on everything. You don't know what they really think/know whether it's today or 2  years ago. They only share with us what they want. But we know they've got rid of Tannerman (Jane nearly caught the abductor according to Gerry so that can't be good news) and Smithman is at the top of their most wanted (maybe that's better news).  And they are investigating all possibilities so they are left with no doubts on what really happened. They've always known about the cadaver scent alerts e.g. on the clothes. And they know nobody died in that apartment before 3 May 2007.

That is precisely what I have been saying in all my posts on this subject. There are many possible reasons but neither I nor you, nor Icabodcrane know which is the one which triggered the recent comment from SY.

It is Icabodcrane and others who are attempting to persuade us that they do KNOW what SY think and do KNOW why SY made the recent statement. I agree with you, that is something which we cannot know.

But you go on to continue the rather nonsensical claim that you believe that this information which they have been aware of for many years has been the trigger for what many believe is a sudden change of direction in their thinking.
That is both illogical in that you are telling us on the one hand that we cannot know what they think and on the other that you do know, and also rather difficult to understand as neither you nor anyone else can apparently explain why such old knowledge would be the trigger for a change of direction now.

[gilet]

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.

So why has it taken him seven years (or four years as lead officer on a review/investigation) to make the obvious links.

That is the bizarre bit which you and the others here making this connection are absolutely failing to explain.

Why now? Why not before now? How can such old information have suddenly triggered this change of thinking?

Please explain if you can.

[Mr Gray]

It isn't any clearer. So best leave it perhaps.
Far from trying to score cheap points I am asking you why you seek to limit the topic to Grime when the thread topic is far wider reaching. Why not read some of the bibliography I posted yesterday? you may then find answers to your questions.
The "I cant be arsed" attitude you expressed yesterday would seem to indicate you do not wish to increase your knowledge on the subject.
Don't bother to reply this is going nowhere as usual.

Why should I bother to read anything you post when what is important re this board is this case...we all know...we don't need to read anything how valuable all the dogs are re drugs...cadaver..expolsives...what we don't know is what the alerts mean when NO evidence is found...that's the question you are avoiding...and there is NOTHING in any of your articles regarding that point

You talk as though I am the only poster on here mentioning grime...everybody is...

[pathfinder73]

Sorry that is not correct. I have given verifiable facts from the statements of Redwood which show that the reasons I proffered exist.

Those reasons are clearly also known to SY.

Your guess as to which particular knowledge sparked the recent comment is no more than that, a guess.

When you lift your blinkers and realise that not everything revolves round the dogs then maybe you will understand.

Name another reason other than the dogs evidence that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment? What other evidence is there to come to that conclusion?

[jassi]

That is precisely what I have been saying in all my posts on this subject. There are many possible reasons but neither I nor you, nor Icabodcrane know which is the one which triggered the recent comment from SY.

It is Icabodcrane and others who are attempting to persuade us that they do KNOW what SY think and do KNOW why SY made the recent statement. I agree with you, that is something which we cannot know.

But you go on to continue the rather nonsensical claim that you believe that this information which they have been aware of for many years has been the trigger for what many believe is a sudden change of direction in their thinking.
That is both illogical in that you are telling us on the one hand that we cannot know what they think and on the other that you do know, and also rather difficult to understand as neither you nor anyone else can apparently explain why such old knowledge would be the trigger for a change of direction now.

Quite. There must be some relatively recent information which has led them to move in this direction. Hopefully we might learn more in the coming weeks.

[jassi]

Name another reason other than the dogs evidence that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment? What other evidence is there to come to that conclusion?

None that we know of, but that doesn't exclude there being some.

[gilet]

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

Well it clearly matters as it was brought up by those trying to use it to suggest that the dog alerts were significant. It is being used in that way in this thread about the dogs. Actually without any proof that the dog alerts were the reason it is almost certainly off topic as well.

But the real reason it matters is that it is so illogical to try to persuade people that such old information can be a trigger for a recent change of emphasis without offering a single explanation why that might be.

That information has always been known so is not likely to have caused any change of direction.

Logically then there has either been no change of direction in SY thinking or if this statement is evidence (and that in itself is not proven) of a change in direction of thinking then something else more recent has been the trigger.

[pathfinder73]

The dogs evidence is very significant. They did their work now it's up to the police to corroborate that evidence or not.

[gilet]

Name another reason other than the dogs evidence that they think Madeleine may have died in the apartment? What other evidence is there to come to that conclusion?

Please have the courtesy to read further up the thread. I have listed (as requested by Icabodcrane) a number of other possible reasons (all of which we know exist because they have been discussed by Redwood).

[gilet]

Quite. There must be some relatively recent information which has led them to move in this direction. Hopefully we might learn more in the coming weeks.

That is, of course, if there has actually been a change of direction in the thinking.

I have discussed earlier in the thread as to why I believe this recent statement may not indicate any such thing.

But I am glad that at least you understand that if there has been, it may well not be related to the old information about the dogs as others are determined to persuade us.

[gilet]

None that we know of, but that doesn't exclude there being some.

Exactly. And as I have just stated I have listed a number of known elements to the case which may indeed have furnished such a trigger.

[jassi]

Well it clearly matters as it was brought up by those trying to use it to suggest that the dog alerts were significant. It is being used in that way in this thread about the dogs. Actually without any proof that the dog alerts were the reason it is almost certainly off topic as well.

But the real reason it matters is that it is so illogical to try to persuade people that such old information can be a trigger for a recent change of emphasis without offering a single explanation why that might be.

That information has always been known so is not likely to have caused any change of direction.

Logically then there has either been no change of direction in SY thinking or if this statement is evidence (and that in itself is not proven) of a change in direction of thinking then something else more recent has been the trigger.

I agree with you, but don't see that it actually matter, except to those obsessives on both sides of the argument.
The police (SY) will decide what evidence is relevant and what is not, based on information that we are not party to.

[John]

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

Two incidents?  Don't you mean an incident and a comment nearly seven years apart.

Not two days ago you agreed with Martin Grime that Eddie's numerous alerts combined with Keela's non alert was 'suggestive' of cadaver odours and now SY has admitted that Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.  Is it stretching the realms of possibility too far to assume just a little that they might just be connected?

What is certain however is that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that she left the apartment alive.

It should also be pointed out that it takes at least 85-90 minutes before a body releases cadaver odour so this in itself rules out stranger involvement if the dogs were correct.