Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Anna]

I do believe that the only Alert given inside of 5A was a wardrobe in the parents bedroom, where all the clothes(which also had alerts) and laundry was kept. The other alerts were confirmed by Keela, so had to be blood.
 I don't know what Eddie was alerting too, at a time past the one month that cadaver scent lasts, but hopefully the truth will be known soon.

[gilet]

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

To more accurately reflect what Martin Grime in his report actually said, I would suggest the following.

The dogs' alerts (he is clear they have no evidential standing) are "suggestive". They did their work and now it's up to the police to corroborate those alerts or not.

At no point did Grime suggest the dogs provide evidence. And at no point did he use the phrase "very significant". Both phrases are a clear exaggeration of the significance he gave to the work of the dogs.

[pathfinder73]

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).

I'm not looking to waste time. What evidence? There's no evidence other than the dogs alerts for somebody having possibly died at 5A. An open window, a neat and tidy bed or moving doors is not evidence that someone died.

[Mr Gray]

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?

It is stretching the realms of possibility to suggest that the alerts were the reason the comment was made when the two "incidents"   the dogs alert and the issuing of the statement...two separate "incidents" were seven years apart

[John]

It is stretching the realms of possibility to suggest that the alerts were the reason the comment was made when the two "incidents"   the dogs alert and the issuing of the statement...two separate "incidents" were seven years apart

In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence.   And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.

[gilet]

I do believe that the only Alert given inside of 5A was a wardrobe in the parents bedroom, where all the clothes(which also had alerts) and laundry was kept. The other alerts were confirmed by Keela, so had to be blood.
 I don't know what Eddie was alerting too, at a time past the one month that cadaver scent lasts, but hopefully the truth will be known soon.

You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods.  There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.

A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.

[Mr Gray]

In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence.   And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.

You are perfectly at liberty to take whatever you wish...but not to state it as fact

[gilet]

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.

Of course the events may be connected. But equally they may not.

What is clear is that there is no explanation from you or anyone else as to why that knowledge (seven years old) should only now have triggered what many here have claimed is a change of direction in the thinking of SY.

What is also certain is that there is no evidence that she died in the apartment either. Remember that Grime is clear that his dog alerts are not to be considered to have any evidential standing. They are merely "suggestive".

And having looked very, very carefully at that video of the dogs and listened just as carefully to the comments which Grime made, particularly in the apartment I think he, himself introduces serious doubt as to whether that alert by Eddie in the corner of the bedroom may be not be correct.

He states quite openly that the source of the scent very possibly does not exist in the location where the alert took place and that it may not even be "in here", meaning the bedroom.  His words indicate that alert could possibly simply relate to the blood which we know existed in the adjacent room where it was found?

[gilet]

In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence.   And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.

You can believe anything which takes your fancy. Personally I will believe the report in the PJ files which an actual expert, Martin Grime, produced.

By definition 'evidence' must have evidential reliability.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

Martin Grime is absolutely explicit. It is only his opinion/view. It is not evidence.

[pathfinder73]

You are correct. And of course the trousers, white top and red T shirt all came from the same box of clothes which had all been bundled together in a slapdash way which allowed for cross-contamination. Also the alert to Cuddle cat may have been the result of it having been in those same trousers for long periods.  There is no way that any court could recognise those alerts as being separate when such flawed forensic handling of the clothing was so apparent.

A further issue within the apartment is that Martin Grime himself clearly indicates on video (which I have posted earlier) that there he cannot be definite that the source of the scent which Eddie alerts to is in the location where he alerted. It may be anywhere in the room or even "not in here". When such expert opinion is placed before the court, it would appear that the actual accuracy of the alerts is not what some have attempted to lead us to believe.

Start getting your evidence then on how the clothes got contaminated? Locate the cadaver? Tell me who touched it? Eddie alerted a cadaver being inside 5A where the clothes were - the police may connect the two for some strange reason and the cadaver was somebody who hasn't been seen since 3 May 2007.

[Mr Gray]

In the absence of any other possibility, I will take the one which is at least supported by some evidence.   And contrary to what gilet previously posted the dog results are evidence.

evidence of what

[John]

You are perfectly at liberty to take whatever you wish...but not to state it as fact

The key word is 'possibility'!

[gilet]

I'm not looking to waste time. What evidence? There's no evidence other than the dogs alerts for somebody having possibly died at 5A. An open window, a neat and tidy bed or moving doors is not evidence that someone died.

I have no idea why you are introducing such examples of evidence. The whole point of my argument it that such old information is hardly likely to have been the trigger for any recent change of emphasis by SY (presuming that such a change has occured anyway).

As to you considering that bothering to read back to follow the thread properly and read the information I provided earlier as wasting your time. Sorry. I spent my time providing the information once. I don't intend to waste my time providing that same evidence for someone who simply cannot be bothered to follow the thread properly or is too lazy to read the information offered.

[John]

You can believe anything which takes your fancy. Personally I will believe the report in the PJ files which an actual expert, Martin Grime, produced.

By definition 'evidence' must have evidential reliability.

It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent' contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

Martin Grime is absolutely explicit. It is only his opinion/view. It is not evidence.

You obviously confuse the meaning and are construing two different terms.  Evidence and evidencial reliability are not the same thing.  The work done by the dogs, the reports and the videos are ALL evidence whether you like it or not and will be 'used in evidence' at a later time if necessary.  Mr Grime knows this very well thus why he is unable to comment publicy on the case. QED

Ps  evidence is not proof!

[gilet]

You obviously confuse the meaning and are construing two different terms.  Evudence and Eevidencial are nit the same thing.  The work done by the dogs, the reports and the videos are ALL evidence whether you like it or not and will be 'used in evidence' at a later time if necessary .

Indicators, not evidence.

I am confusing nothing.

To be evidence things must by definition be evidential.

That much is perfectly clear from Grime's own report. It needs no interpretation by any go-between.

Grime has already commented in public about the matter in his report, where it is his careful differentiation between the terms which I am quoting.