Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[gilet]

Actually, the dogs are not supposed to find evidence, they alert where evidence may be found. It is up to humans after that.

I agree, "the dogs are not supposed to find evidence, they alert where evidence may be found. It is up to humans after that..." to find that evidence.

The alerts are mere indicators which point to potential sites where evidence may be found.

[gilet]

I am with you Mr Moderator.
The first "cadaver" dog was deployed in 1974. So it is hardly some new kind of voodoo is it man?
Many US States have specialist EVRD Units; The FBI; The Royal Canadian Mounted Police; The US Military have used them for finding MIA's from the South East Asia conflict and so it goes on. Obviously a lot of this predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. These teams clearly know what they are at a little bit better than the pundits on here. If not, one helluva lot of cash has been wasted. You can imagine some US Marine "Gunny"  with his dogs in Vietnam paddy looking for MIAs saying to his dogs. "Well fellas we are being pulled out. Anonymous Limey civilians on a Limey website say we are wasting our time because some retired Portuguese detective.................."
So given that EVRDs are in wide use and have been in use since 1974, that these teams know what they are at and that it isn't exactly new technology, there are papers written by those who know what they are at on "alerts" and their meanings, why the argument on here about general reliability of the dog teams?. One rapidly comes to the conclusion it is about one particular man and two specific dogs, despite the thread title. If the pundits on here could once start arguing successfully about significant pre 2007 failure (in the plural ) of EVRDs and show that some authoritative body had closed it's EVRD facility because it was a failure then one might have a rethink. Until then the pundits on here are, forgive the expression, p***ing in the wind. I will not post a link because on a previous post I included a bibliography. It is fairly apparent what is being driven at on this thread but there appears to be a lack of bottle in actually expressing it in unequivocal terms.

Your rather nasty comment towards the end of your post is regrettable in a serious discussion, but comes as no great surprise.

To answer your main point though. Nobody is suggesting that dogs do not provide a valuable role in indicating where evidence may exist. It doesn't take any bibliography to assure any sane person that police dogs have a vital role to play in highlighting potential sites for humans to investigate further.

But, I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that no false alerts ever occur, or that handler bias can be an issue, or that alerts have to be corroborated by actual evidence to be of any significant value in most cases.

Would you suggest that those people who have been alerted to by drug sniffer dogs at airports and who after further intense scrutiny by officers or others have bee found to have no drugs at all, or perhaps more accurately reflecting the situation of the McCanns, whose baggage has the tiniest trace of a drug on the exterior, should still be considered guilty and should be hounded by those officers for years afterwards because the dogs never lie?

Because that is precisely what is happening to the McCanns. They were alerted to. Intense scrutiny then followed. Nothing was found which showed that the McCanns were involved in any crime. Yet the hounding continues...

[gilet]

No clue what point, if any, you are trying to make.

People lie their asses off , dumb tw..s believe them.  That's the message I got.

It even happens on forums sometimes, not just in police investigations in the real world. People make up things and others believe them. A great shame but some people are inveterate liars and very clever at furnishing the details to make themselves seem the real thing.

[gilet]

Just reading back.

Gilet posted this in response to my point that a cadaver dog alert was not used as evidence in the Adrian Prout trial.

Not quite right.

The prosecution case was that Prout had strangled Kate in the lounge of the holiday home (which is where Eddie alerted).

It was only Prout's confession and the fact that he divulged where Kate's body was that revealed that detail as erroneous in a nonetheless safe conviction.

Prout's conviction was based on other factors, such as the fact that none of her bank accounts had been touched from the point that she disappeared.

Thank you for the correction.

[gilet]

In the end, the only thing that matters is forensic evidence. 

The function of the dogs is to narrow down the search area.  It is then down to the forensic teams to gather material and the lab(s) to analyse it. 

And that is it - in this case there is no forensic evidence from which a conclusion can be drawn.

Correct.

Even in a situation where there can be no question of contamination (as most certainly existed in this case) and the dog alerts can be considered absolutely reliable, it is not the alerts which ultimately matter.

Only forensic evidence matters. And as you say, nothing was found in this instance which made it clear that Madeleine had died in that apartment.

[Estuarine]

Your rather nasty comment towards the end of your post is regrettable in a serious discussion, but comes as no great surprise.

To answer your main point though. Nobody is suggesting that dogs do not provide a valuable role in indicating where evidence may exist. It doesn't take any bibliography to assure any sane person that police dogs have a vital role to play in highlighting potential sites for humans to investigate further.

But, I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that no false alerts ever occur, or that handler bias can be an issue, or that alerts have to be corroborated by actual evidence to be of any significant value in most cases.

Would you suggest that those people who have been alerted to by drug sniffer dogs at airports and who after further intense scrutiny by officers or others have bee found to have no drugs at all, or perhaps more accurately reflecting the situation of the McCanns, whose baggage has the tiniest trace of a drug on the exterior, should still be considered guilty and should be hounded by those officers for years afterwards because the dogs never lie?

Because that is precisely what is happening to the McCanns. They were alerted to. Intense scrutiny then followed. Nothing was found which showed that the McCanns were involved in any crime. Yet the hounding continues...

You have made your position with respect to my attitude and turn of phrase clear before.
Don't be fooled that a rough accent and turn of phrase akin to a pirates parrot somehow equates to a lack of education.
The rest of your post is not relevant to the question of whether or not EVRDs are reliable which is the thread topic.
The McCanns are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not EVRDs are reliable.

[gilet]

You are not neutral in your stance and never have been.

Nothing you have typed here would suggest otherwise.

As to 'attacking people', pull the other one.

Place Madeleine's disappearance where it belongs, at her parents feet.

Again with 'abduction',  NAE EVIDENCE AT ALL.

P.S. I am not 't war' with the parents, but I do place the blame where it belongs and nothing you can say will change that.

People can read your post for themselves.

It is a strong theme in the post I refer to that you believe it is a shame that people are not, as you put it ATTACKING the McCanns.

Just because others are not prepared to join with you in such attacks does not mean that others are not searching for the truth.

To find the truth you must be open to all possibilities.

Clearly from your final comments above you have closed your mind to other possibilities and have decided on the guilt of the parents even though absolutely no proof exists of any such guilt.

I am afraid that you will never persuade me to close my mind in the way you have done and to behave effectively like a mini lynch-mob as you are doing; haranguing the parents of a missing child as if they are guilty of a crime when no evidence of any such guilt exists. 

Shame on you.

[Mr Gray]

You are not neutral in your stance and never have been.

Nothing you have typed here would suggest otherwise.

As to 'attacking people', pull the other one.

Place Madeleine's disappearance where it belongs, at her parents feet.

Again with 'abduction',  NAE EVIDENCE AT ALL.

P.S. I am not 't war' with the parents, but I do place the blame where it belongs and nothing you can say will change that.

You can place the blame wherever you like...it doesn't matter and no one cares

[gilet]

You have made your position with respect to my attitude and turn of phrase clear before.
Don't be fooled that a rough accent and turn of phrase akin to a pirates parrot somehow equates to a lack of education.
The rest of your post is not relevant to the question of whether or not EVRDs are reliable which is the thread topic.
The McCanns are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not EVRDs are reliable.

You suppose too much I fear. At no point have I questioned your level of education. If you were to look again I simply suggested that your use of the terminology you abusively used was regrettable. I maintain that.

As for whether the reliability of sniffer dogs is relevant or not you are being rather disingenuous.

Firstly the thread title does not restrict discussion to EVRD dogs as drug sniffer dogs are most definitely Forensic Evidence Search Dogs.

Secondly, this whole thread has to be read in the context of its position on the forum. This is a thread being written on a board entirely devoted to the McCann case and it is therefore not (as you rather disingenuously claim) off topic to use McCann case examples when discussing the reliability of the dogs.

[Mr Gray]

You have made your position with respect to my attitude and turn of phrase clear before.
Don't be fooled that a rough accent and turn of phrase akin to a pirates parrot somehow equates to a lack of education.
The rest of your post is not relevant to the question of whether or not EVRDs are reliable which is the thread topic.
The McCanns are irrelevant to the issue of whether or not EVRDs are reliable.

You must remember that this is the Maddie McCann forum so don't be surprised if most posts are linked to Maddie, that's the rule of the forum. Any threads not related to Maddie have no place on this board...as you may be aware

[Mr Gray]

Your rather nasty comment towards the end of your post is regrettable in a serious discussion, but comes as no great surprise.

To answer your main point though. Nobody is suggesting that dogs do not provide a valuable role in indicating where evidence may exist. It doesn't take any bibliography to assure any sane person that police dogs have a vital role to play in highlighting potential sites for humans to investigate further.

But, I don't think anyone could seriously suggest that no false alerts ever occur, or that handler bias can be an issue, or that alerts have to be corroborated by actual evidence to be of any significant value in most cases.

Would you suggest that those people who have been alerted to by drug sniffer dogs at airports and who after further intense scrutiny by officers or others have bee found to have no drugs at all, or perhaps more accurately reflecting the situation of the McCanns, whose baggage has the tiniest trace of a drug on the exterior, should still be considered guilty and should be hounded by those officers for years afterwards because the dogs never lie?

Because that is precisely what is happening to the McCanns. They were alerted to. Intense scrutiny then followed. Nothing was found which showed that the McCanns were involved in any crime. Yet the hounding continues...

Some years ago I was passing through Sydney airport when a lovely Labrador took an intense interest in me. Border Patrol had not been on TV at that time so I didn't realise what was happening. My luggage was searched and I was questioned and that was it. No drugs found....but a victim of cross contamination

[Alfred R Jones]

Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves.  He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed.  A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.

"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders. 

Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there?  Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...

[Estuarine]

You suppose too much I fear. At no point have I questioned your level of education. If you were to look again I simply suggested that your use of the terminology you abusively used was regrettable. I maintain that.

As for whether the reliability of sniffer dogs is relevant or not you are being rather disingenuous.

Firstly the thread title does not restrict discussion to EVRD dogs as drug sniffer dogs are most definitely Forensic Evidence Search Dogs.

Secondly, this whole thread has to be read in the context of its position on the forum. This is a thread being written on a board entirely devoted to the McCann case and it is therefore not (as you rather disingenuously claim) off topic to use McCann case examples when discussing the reliability of the dogs.

Well pardon me ; perhaps if you didn't make a career out of talking down to people and being condescending. I'll will do a deal with you. You cut the condescending manner and I'll disable pirates parrot mode.

[gilet]

Well pardon me ; perhaps if you didn't make a career out of talking down to people and being condescending. I'll will do a deal with you. You cut the condescending manner and I'll disable pirates parrot mode.

If you equate accuracy (which is what I strive for in my posts) with condescension I am sorry but when debating I prefer to point out errors such as those in your previous post (especially when they are errors relating to my actions as yours were).

Perhaps you would prefer errors to remain unchallenged?

I notice that you make no comment at all on the actual accuracy of my comments which maybe because they are indeed accurate.

Would you like to comment on my post #599 which relates uses the PDL deployment of Grime's dogs as an example as to where the reliability of such dogs could be challenged?

[Cariad]

As a non-expert I accept your comments. However, in my original post I showed that an expert dog-handler does state that the change in clothing affects whether the dog is in "working mode". If experts have reservations then there is a legitimate question to answer.

And do remember that Mr Grime did not even wear consistent clothing in PDL. Why did he not follow the kind of procedures a police officer would normally follow?

At what point did the expert express reservations?

He didn't. He stated "That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode"

And as I pointed out earlier, that is the dogs first cue that he's about to 'work'. Should that initial cue be missing, do you really think that he wouldn't obey a command?

You actually think it's possible that a police dog would fail to apprehend a criminal on command because his trainer was wearing a different jumper?


Unfortunately everything you have written about the dogs and their alerts is now coloured for me by the fact that you seem to be working under the misapprehension that dogs are people.

You have no understanding of how dogs think at all do you? You can't have to believe for even a nano second that a uniform will affect the relationship between a dog and its owner.