Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 355206 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #420 on: March 30, 2014, 02:31:38 PM »
It has been suggested that the reason EVRD Eddie reacted to Kate's clothing was because she had contact with one or more cadavers prior to going to Praia da Luz.  This raises some important issues about cadavers, cadaver scent and contamination.

Firstly, it is my understanding that KM was a GP.  As such I would have thought that her contact with any dead people would be minimal.  When a GP is called out to a potential sudden death they don't normally get involved other than to check for any signs if life.  Contact will be minimal and even then they will disinfect their hands if gloves weren't worn.

We know that cadaver scent is only released after a period of around 90 minutes has passed following death.  It is highly unlikely that any GP would be attending a deceased person so long after death and even if they did they would not have any reason to have contact with the body at that late stage.

Clothing worn by a GP on duty would unlikely to have been taken on holiday abroad.

For all the reasons above therefore I find it extremely difficult to believe that KM carried any cadaver contaminants with her on holiday.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline jassi

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #421 on: March 30, 2014, 02:34:39 PM »
Interesting story here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592301/Bones-garage-floor-mother-went-missing-1952.html about cadaver dogs detecting scent after 62 years.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #422 on: March 30, 2014, 02:34:46 PM »
It has been suggested that the reason EVRD Eddie reacted to Kate's clothing was because she had contact with one or more cadavers prior to going to Praia da Luz.  This raises some important issues about cadavers, cadaver scent and contamination.

Firstly, it is my understanding that KM was a GP.  As such I would have thought that her contact with any dead people would be minimal.  When a GP is called out to a potential sudden death they don't normally get involved other than to check for any signs if life.  Contact will be minimal and even then they will disinfect their hands if gloves weren't worn.

We know that cadaver scent is only released after a period of around 90 minutes has passed following death.  It is highly unlikely that any GP would be attending a deceased person so long after death and even if they did they would not have any reason to have contact with the body at that late stage.

Clothing worn by a GP on duty would unlikely to have been taken on holiday abroad.

For all the reasons above therefore I find it extremely difficult to believe that KM carried any cadaver contaminants with her on holiday.

As I am aware Kate never claimed this...Grime himself says that the alerts could have been due to contamination from several scenarios...or words to that effect...so once again I am going to go with what the expert says

Estuarine

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #423 on: March 30, 2014, 02:38:24 PM »
As I am aware Kate never claimed this...Grime himself says that the alerts could have been due to contamination from several scenarios...or words to that effect...so once again I am going to go with what the expert says

I guess as with all specifications , contract and other legal documents we need to know the definition of "contamination" as used by Mr Grime.

Offline John

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #424 on: March 30, 2014, 02:38:33 PM »
I thought best to post this observation separately so that members can respond.

Cadaver contaminants and cadaver scent must not be confused.  The former is matter and can last for years while the latter is a scent and dispenses within hours.

If KM for example brought contaminated clothing with her from the UK (unlikely imo) then it was contaminant and not scent as some posters have wrongly stated.   
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carana

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #425 on: March 30, 2014, 02:41:33 PM »
I thought best to post this observation separately so that members can respond.

Cadaver contaminants and cadaver scent must not be confused.  The former is matter and can last for years while the latter is a scent and dispenses within hours.

If KM for example brought contaminated clothing with her from the UK (unlikely imo) then it was contaminant and not scent as some posters have wrongly stated.

The first thing that Eddie got excited about was a tiny pair of shorts... but that item is not on the list prepared by the PJ.

What's the explanation for that?

Offline sadie

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #426 on: March 30, 2014, 02:43:52 PM »
It has been suggested that the reason EVRD Eddie reacted to Kate's clothing was because she had contact with one or more cadavers prior to going to Praia da Luz.  This raises some important issues about cadavers, cadaver scent and contamination.

Firstly, it is my understanding that KM was a GP.  As such I would have thought that her contact with any dead people would be minimal.  When a GP is called out to a potential sudden death they don't normally get involved other than to check for any signs if life.  Contact will be minimal and even then they will disinfect their hands if gloves weren't worn.

We know that cadaver scent is only released after a period of around 90 minutes has passed following death.  It is highly unlikely that any GP would be attending a deceased person so long after death and even if they did they would not have any reason to have contact with the body at that late stage.

Clothing worn by a GP on duty would unlikely to have been taken on holiday abroad.

For all the reasons above therefore I find it extremely difficult to believe that KM carried any cadaver contaminants with her on holiday.
When my son died, neither GP disinfected their hands nor wore gloves... and there was a fair delay before they arrived.  As he had been dying for a long time they had little need to do much other than confirm death. 

When my hubbies relative died suddenly and unexpectedly a couple of months ago, it was a completely different scenario.

The GP might not have been called until the morning to someone who had died, without anyone being present, during the night... or even died days before


With all respect, John, once again we dont know the circumstances and it is wrong to be judgemental.  To jump to conclusions which may be wrong. 

Estuarine

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #427 on: March 30, 2014, 02:50:31 PM »
Correct. The first quote in your post as a contribution to debate is equally bad. I made it very clear that I don't condone such behaviour. No difference between that post or the one from Estuarine. Both seem to suggest that the poster lacks any proper response.

However you then introduce a completely different issue. Kate McCann was not participating in a debate when she used that term. It was a couple of words presented to show the extreme frustration she was feeling. A couple of words in a book of tens of thousands of words but the only two you seem able to focus on. And your silliness about any such dictionary proves my point.

Now back to the topic at hand - the reliability of the dogs.

As I said on your short lived thread yesterday. There are six or seven authoritative reports on scientific trials which have been carried out with respect to EVRDs dating back to the 1990s. Why not look at those to obtain a valid view of the dogs reliability. Unless of course we have some one in house who can trump the authors of those reports. One inclines to the view, however, that professors of forensic anthropology will not be dicking about on this forum.
b

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #428 on: March 30, 2014, 03:29:44 PM »
As I said on your short lived thread yesterday. There are six or seven authoritative reports on scientific trials which have been carried out with respect to EVRDs dating back to the 1990s. Why not look at those to obtain a valid view of the dogs reliability. Unless of course we have some one in house who can trump the authors of those reports. One inclines to the view, however, that professors of forensic anthropology will not be dicking about on this forum.
b

As I have said before we don't need to read these...we will learn nothing....Dogs have a  very sensitive sense of smell and can be trained to detect many things...from explosives to patients with cancer...they are extremely reliable at finding evidence if the evidence is there...that's it...in your hours of reading these reporst would you like to educate us in what else you have learnt...you don't have to read the whole bible to make the decision that there is no god

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #429 on: March 30, 2014, 03:31:12 PM »
I guess as with all specifications , contract and other legal documents we need to know the definition of "contamination" as used by Mr Grime.

its quite simple...a touches b...b is contaminated

Offline faithlilly

Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #431 on: March 30, 2014, 04:49:09 PM »
As I have said before we don't need to read these...we will learn nothing....Dogs have a  very sensitive sense of smell and can be trained to detect many things...from explosives to patients with cancer...they are extremely reliable at finding evidence if the evidence is there...that's it...in your hours of reading these reporst would you like to educate us in what else you have learnt...you don't have to read the whole bible to make the decision that there is no god

 which have been carried out with respect to EVRDs dating back to the 1990s.

According to Grime, Eddie was aged 7 in 2007.

So he'd have been born around 2000.

Eddie is the only EVRD in the history of cadaver dogs ...

Offline Eleanor

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #432 on: March 30, 2014, 04:56:54 PM »
which have been carried out with respect to EVRDs dating back to the 1990s.

According to Grime, Eddie was aged 7 in 2007.

So he'd have been born around 2000.

Eddie is the only EVRD in the history of cadaver dogs ...

That's because Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog.  Just a Victim Recovery Dog who was supposedly Enhanced somewhat.  Although no one is quite sure how, except it involved pigs and pig meat in some way.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #433 on: March 30, 2014, 05:03:37 PM »
That's because Eddie wasn't a Cadaver Dog.  Just a Victim Recovery Dog who was supposedly Enhanced somewhat.  Although no one is quite sure how, except it involved pigs and pig meat in some way.

wait for the trial ....Grime is holding everything back and the real truth...not what he told the Portuguese police...that was rubbish...the real truth will be revealed...At least thats what some posters expect us to believe

Offline Eleanor

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #434 on: March 30, 2014, 05:23:44 PM »
wait for the trial ....Grime is holding everything back and the real truth...not what he told the Portuguese police...that was rubbish...the real truth will be revealed...At least thats what some posters expect us to believe

Well I hope it's locked away somewhere with his solicitor in case anything happens to him.  He's no spring chicken, and the way things are going we could all be dead before The McCanns ever get tried.