Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[icabodcrane]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. It is, however, based on dog alerts which may or may not have the slightest bearing on the disappearance.

Till you provide me with one tiny fragment of evidence that the alerts relate to Madeleine or even that the alerts are actually reliable then I believe that I am also perfectly entitled to my own opinion which clearly differs from yours.

Your entire reasoning is based on alerts which have never been shown to relate to the missing child or even to cadaver scent at all. Even Grime goes no further than saying that the alerts are "suggestive".

It appears that those "suggestive" alerts are enough to sway you.

I prefer to remain more open-minded and await actual evidence.

A child disappears without trace

In the apartment where she was last seen alive a cadaver dog alerts

If you insist that  there is nothing that  'relates'  those two facts   then you cannot lay claim to   'open-mindedness' 

[gilet]

IMO the cadaver was hidden inside the wardrobe on the shelf where Eddie sniffed and then barked very loud and continually. He will bark where he finds the strongest scent source. As soon as he got to 5A Grime recognised his change in behaviour due to cadaver scent.

You are entirely free to hold whatever opinion you like. Unfortunately you have completely ignored the valid point that I made to you earlier that you have not yet managed to show that the alert from the dog related to an actual cadaver rather than cadaver scent introduced to the apartment by some kind of contaminated material or object.

Till you manage to show it was definitely related to an actual cadaver it seems pointless continuing the conversation.

Can you manage that? Nobody else has managed it yet so I am not that hopeful.

[gilet]

A child disappears without trace

In the apartment where she was last seen alive a cadaver dog alerts

If you insist that  there is nothing that  'relates'  those two facts   then you cannot lay claim to   'open-mindedness'

So far I have not stated as you seem to think that nothing "relates" these two facts. That is a gross misrepresentation of what I have posted.

I have simply stated that I do not place the same kind of reliance on unproven dog alerts that you do.

Whereas you are expressly using the relationship between the "suggestive" alerts and the missing child to conclude that the child is probably dead and died in the apartment, I am simply stating that I don't see the alerts as that reliable and that till any other evidence appears the other options as to what happened are equally valid.

I am open-minded about the potential for the alerts to have been unreliable, to have referred to something other than a cadaver, to have no connection to Madeleine McCann at all. You don't seem to be allowing for any of those possibilities when you say that other options are not valid.

We clearly disagree and I doubt that either of us could persuade the other to change his or her mind. Till evidence appears I will not be swayed, as I rely on evidence as far as is humanly possible and that evidence as far as I am concerned must be demonstrably reliable. The dog alerts are not evidence, they are not demonstrably reliable and therefore are mere indications of one of a number of possibilities.

[pathfinder73]

You are entirely free to hold whatever opinion you like. Unfortunately you have completely ignored the valid point that I made to you earlier that you have not yet managed to show that the alert from the dog related to an actual cadaver rather than cadaver scent introduced to the apartment by some kind of contaminated material or object.

Till you manage to show it was definitely related to an actual cadaver it seems pointless continuing the conversation.

Can you manage that? Nobody else has managed it yet so I am not that hopeful.

It is possible but highly unlikely in a case of contradictions, moving doors and witnesses seeing a child matching her description being carried away in a deep sleep by a man who has never came forward. "Is she asleep?" I wish that was so!

[gilet]

You are entirely free to hold whatever opinion you like. Unfortunately you have completely ignored the valid point that I made to you earlier that you have not yet managed to show that the alert from the dog related to an actual cadaver rather than cadaver scent introduced to the apartment by some kind of contaminated material or object.

Till you manage to show it was definitely related to an actual cadaver it seems pointless continuing the conversation.

Can you manage that? Nobody else has managed it yet so I am not that hopeful.

It is possible but highly unlikely in a case of contradictions, moving doors and witnesses seeing a child matching her description being carried away in a deep sleep by a man who has never came forward. "Is she asleep?" I wish that was so!

Why are you rambling and avoiding the question I have put to you? If you are unable to answer the question then why not admit the fact instead of introducing such irrelevant and rather incoherent comments?

[pathfinder73]

The dogs worked for long hours  8-)(--) Here's an example:

[1.   There is absolutely nothing but the dog alerts. Not a single piece of evidence supports those alerts. Not a speck of Madeleine’s blood, not a single indication in any form.]

Many alerts (but not anywhere else) and check contradictions in statements, eye witnesses, finger prints, routine change - there's back up to the theory that Madeleine died. They need to identify one man whose efits were suppressed for years.

[gilet]

The dogs worked for long hours  8-)(--) Here's an example:

[1.   There is absolutely nothing but the dog alerts. Not a single piece of evidence supports those alerts. Not a speck of Madeleine’s blood, not a single indication in any form.]

Many alerts (but not anywhere else) and check contradictions in statements, eye witnesses, finger prints, routine change - there's back up to the theory that Madeleine died. They need to identify one man whose efits were suppressed for years.

The content of the section of my post which you have quoted is absolutely correct.

Your unwillingness to read posts which challenge you is a serious problem that you have, not one that I have. I read and learn from others. I read and debate with others. But you seem to think being abusive and introducing entirely irrelevant material is acceptable. We clearly differ on that.

Your last two posts are simply totally off topic. I presume that is because you are unable to answer the ON topic questions I asked you.  But as we are not supposed to go off topic, till you do answer the questions I posed to you and which you have consistently avoided then I will just read your posts but will no longer reply.

Please return to the topic at hand and answer the questions about what evidence you have that convinces you that a cadaver (rather than some other cadaver scent contaminant) was present in 5A.

[stephen25000]

I find it quite fascinating when gilet repeatedly posts on this issue, with to put it mildly an ultra-thin veneer of neutrality.

However, that neutrality is irrelevant  and clearly doesn't exist, no matter the pretense.

It has already been established that the forensics were inconclusive.

The dogs made alerts, which posters from either side of the fence will disagree on.

The bottom line is, posters supporting the mccanns will attack the use of dogs and say they have no meaning, whilst those on the reverse will say they have significance, as dogs are very reliable in what they do. The same dogs having being used by the same handler in other cases.

Likewise, Martin Grime had no axe to grind, he was merely doing his job, and any other handler would also have been attacked by the mccanns supporters in the same way.


It has always been a SHAME they never attacked the parents for what they did in leaving their children in the first place, which is where the case starts with Madeleine's disappearance and the inexcusable leaving of leaving 3 children unprotected for extended periods of time, with infrequent and  no independently corroborated checks. As s well known, children of that age are extremely vulnerable, and nothing said by the mccanns  or those that back them, can change that.

Meanwhile there is nothing to prove an abduction took place, and certainly no forensics to back one up.

[Mr Gray]

Evidential Value...

Value of records given as or in support of evidence, but not the evidence itself.

Where does this definition come from

I have found this one...
 


“Value deriving from the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity.”


So there is no potential to yield any evidence....no evidence

[Mr Gray]

I find it quite fascinating when gilet repeatedly posts on this issue, with to put it mildly an ultra-thin veneer of neutrality.

However, that neutrality is irrelevant  and clearly doesn't exist, no matter the pretense.

It has already been established that the forensics were inconclusive.

The dogs made alerts, which posters from either side of the fence will disagree on.

The bottom line is, posters supporting the mccanns will attack the use of dogs and say they have no meaning, whilst those on the reverse will say they have significance, as dogs are very reliable in what they do. The same dogs having being used by the same handler in other cases.

Likewise, Martin Grime had no axe to grind, he was merely doing his job, and any other handler would also have been attacked by the mccanns supporters in the same way.


It has always been a SHAME they never attacked the parents for what they did in leaving their children in the first place, which is where the case starts with Madeleine's disappearance and the inexcusable leaving of leaving 3 children unprotected for extended periods of time, with infrequent and  no independently corroborated checks. As s well known, children of that age are extremely vulnerable, and nothing said by the mccanns  or those that back them, can change that.

Meanwhile there is nothing to prove an abduction took place, and certainly no forensics to back one up.

I don't think it's a shame I do not attack the parents...I think it is shameful you do...they are the victims of a crime

[Mr Gray]

Explain it to us then. Preferably in more than one sentence that does not end in wrong or fool.
Come on surprise us and give us the benefit of your vast wealth of knowledge. Sight of your credentials in matters EVRD might be handy too. Just to give weight to your opinion.

The job of all these dogs is to find evidence that can be used in court. The dogs found no evidence.If you look at what Grime says...I wont post it all again...he doesn't even confirm it is a cadaver alert. He goes on to say that even if it is it could have arisen from several scenarios of cross contamination...so  did Maddie die in the appt...who knows.

Everything I have said is confirmed by Grime...the expert. the reason these threads run on and on is because posters wont accept what Grime said

[Mr Gray]

A child disappears without trace

In the apartment where she was last seen alive a cadaver dog alerts

If you insist that  there is nothing that  'relates'  those two facts   then you cannot lay claim to   'open-mindedness'

It would be true to say that the two best forensic dogs in the world found no evidence that maddie died in the appt

[Wonderfulspam]

It would be true to say that the two best forensic dogs in the world found no evidence that maddie died in the appt

And it's also true to say that no amount of men seen lurking suspiciously near the McCann apartment, can prove she wasn't dead before she left it.

[ferryman]

I missed that one FM Thank you 

Actually, Anna, the wider quote which that extract comes from is also worth citing:

It should be noted the report made by the trainer /owner of these dogs. On this report it's mentioned the methodology of training:

'Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).

This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'

These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.

It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.

In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.

Note, in particular, the part I underline, right near the top.

Trainer/owner

Grime?

Or South Yorkshire Police?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_11_VOLUMES.htm

[stephen25000]

I don't think it's a shame I do not attack the parents...I think it is shameful you do...they are the victims of a crime

The parents are responsible for Madeleine's predicament, not a mystical abductor, for which there is no nothing to show the existence of.