Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[gilet]

No what is self evident is your expression of neutrality, ridiculous in extreme.

 No matter what you claim or is counter claimed , the dogs have significance.

That is why you keep returning to the subject.

Do you not realise how hypocritical and silly that comment from you really is.

I am returning to the topic of THIS thread, though that idea seems totally beyond your comprehension.

And for you to claim that others keep coming back to a subject when over 95% of your posts come back to your obsession and repetitive mantra is so hypocritical as to beyond funny.

Now can you comment on relevant issues such as posts 599 and 618 or are you going to continue to post off topic irrelevancy?

[Mr Gray]

Yup, it seems so, can you convey that to gilet who seems to be under the misinformed illusion that a handlers clothing can influence a trained dogs findings, thanks in advance !

Gilet didn't say that

[gilet]

Show me the post where the dog handler claims that his dog will not respond unless he's wearing his uniform?

You can't cause it doesn't exist.

What was said is that the dog shifts in to work mode when the uniform is seen.

How you have managed to twist this to meaning that the dog will not react unless the uniform is being worn is beyond me comprehension!

It is THE most stupid reason I have ever heard for the dog's markings being unreliable. Bar none. It is in line with Sadie's Bushra/Madeleine Moroccan fake bobbies with blue drawn on nipples fiasco.

It is that  ridiculous!

Don't take my word for it. Go and ask someone walking their dog if the dog would've still left the house if he'd used a different lead.

As for my post being inane, give me that over humourless, arrogant, misinformed and condescending any day!

When the handler stated that it was when the uniform appeared that the dog went into "working mode" he was clearly stating that till that point the dog was not in that mode or there would have been no sense in his comment.

You obviously don't see that. Not my problem.

When a professional dog handler makes a comment then I tend to listen to that handler. Just as I listen to Grime when he states categorically that the dog alerts have no evidential value/reliability without corroboration. It is others on this thread who are choosing to ignore completely the words of the professionals.

[Cariad]

Gilet didn't say that

She has repeatedly said that and it's driving me nuts!

[gilet]

She has repeatedly said that and it's driving me nuts!

I have posted a quotation from a professional dog handler which is perfectly clear in meaning. You have chosen to ignore that clear meaning and have posted at length without explaining why I should take your word over the word of a professional dog handler.

[Alfred R Jones]

What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?

Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.

[Cariad]

I have posted a quotation from a professional dog handler which is perfectly clear in meaning. You have chosen to ignore that clear meaning and have posted at length without explaining why I should take your word over the word of a professional dog handler.

Right. I officially give up. Can someone with more patients/sanity to spare please explain that

"That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode."

Does not mean that the dog will not react to commands unless the uniform is being worn  please?

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/04/02/3976966.htm

[gilet]

What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?

Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.

None at all, that is the clear point which is being missed by some posters for whatever reason.

[Cariad]

What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?

Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.

You can find the answer if you read my increasingly frustrated and irate posts from about half seven this morning.

They're all on this very thread, so you won't need to go far.

Welcome, by the way.

[gilet]

Right. I officially give up. Can someone with more patients/sanity to spare please explain that

"That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode."

Does not mean that the dog will not react to commands unless the uniform is being worn  please?

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/04/02/3976966.htm

When you read back you will notice that I've never said the dog will not react to commands. That is pure invention on your part. What I have said and which follows on perfectly logically from the professiional dog handler's comment is that the dog will not sense that it is in "work mode". Dogs are conditioned to work mode by various means. In the case of a guide dog that might well be the putting on of a harness. In the case of other dogs that might be related to uniform. The dog may be in more playful mode and more easily distracted when not given familiar cues such as the uniform which the professional handler tells us is important.

[Cariad]

When you read back you will notice that I've never said the dog will not react to commands. That is pure invention on your part. What I have said and which follows on perfectly logically from the professiional dog handler's comment is that the dog will not sense that it is in "work mode". Dogs are conditioned to work mode by various means. In the case of a guide dog that might well be the putting on of a harness. In the case of other dogs that might be related to uniform. The dog may be in more playful mode and more easily distracted when not given familiar cues such as the uniform which the professional handler tells us is important.

No, no he doesn't say it's important. He doesn't say that at all. That is YOU saying that. Did you watch the nice vid I posted earlier of Mr Grime in and out of his jumper while training his dogs?

As I'm sure you noticed, it didn't affect the dog's alerts. Do you know why? It was because the dog is trained, probably on a particular word to do a particular thing.

Should the trainer have been wearing his 'dog training clothes' the dog would have known it was going out for training at an earlier point. it is the command that the dog reacts to, not the clothing, not the environment, not the weather. The command.

[slartibartfast]

But your second paragraph is flawed. You refer to such alerts as evidence. They are not evidence unless corroborated. They are merely indicators with absolutely no evidential value or reliability with out such corroboration as Grime persistently tells us.

This is purely a question of where a case is heard.

In some courts it is evidence so it cannot be stated as an unqualified fact.

[Estuarine]

What is becoming very clear is that certain posters are desperately avoiding posts 599 and 618 on this thread where they might have to discuss the reliability of the actual dogs and are doing their very best to disrupt with inane and childish comments.

It's obvious why as well.

Says you having given my post 608 a body swerve. What are your credentials with respect to generic forensic dogs? ( paraphrased as it were so do not slide out from under with a lecture on dog definitions).

[gilet]

Says you having given my post 608 a body swerve. What are your credentials with respect to generic forensic dogs? ( paraphrased as it were so do not slide out from under with a lecture on dog definitions).

I have never, ever anywhere claimed any such credentials. I simply read and comment on the statements of professional dog handlers. I don't need credentials to do that, or forums such as this would be pointless.

Your very question is simply ridiculous.

What I have posted is directly in line with what the professionals say. No matter how often you wish to ignore that and prefer to post about banging your head like an insane person, I prefer to believe the professionals rather than amateurs such as yourself.

[Anna]

I don't know when the training video was filmed, but it is obviously normal practice....
No rubber gloves were used when training and using skeletal samples?……Could this not cause X contamination of trainer’s clothing etc?
Is it a  possibility that further X contamination may occur during an investigation whilst innocently, touching and brushing past articles, while wearing garments, used in training, without the use of protective gloves ?

Video around at around 1 min.15 secs onwards