Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[John]

It is very revealing when people post a "full report" but show bias by highlighting only certain aspects of it without giving any explanation for that action.

As for the comment you add, I think you are completely wrong. The cross-contamination theory is actually a very sensible explanation as to why there were no alerts in other locations.

Had one item of clothing which had been in close contact with a cadaver been brought from England either by the McCanns or by previous occupants of the apartment and had rested in the cupboard in the bedroom it could have been the source of all the alerts via contamination.

For example, had the trousers of Kate McCann been in contact with a cadaver, had she sat on the grass outside the apartment while playing with the children, had the cuddle cat been carried in a pocket of the trousers and had the trousers been in a box with the other clothes rubbing against them, then I can see that the alerts might have had a single source. It surprises me that others rule this possibility out without explanation.

Completely wrong Gilet?   You have ignored the main thrust of my point.   The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.

If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?

The yet as unexplained fact were are left with is that the dogs only alerted in apartment 5a where Madeleine was last seen and to possessions belonging to the McCanns.

What are the chances of that happening by accident?  (excuse the pun)

[Benice]

Completely wrong Gilet?   You have completely ignored my point.   The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.

If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?

Why indeed?   These dogs could detect miniscule residual odours from blood etc deposited years and years previously.

Either Grimes is lying about the abilities of his dogs or we are being asked to believe that not a single speck of blood had been shed in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars.

I believe Grime was telling the truth about his dogs skills.

I do not believe that not a single spot of blood had ever been shed in all those other apartments and in those other cars over a period of years.

The one glaring difference between checks associated with the McCanns and all the other checks is the amount of time spent - and if the dogs had been made to spend more time in those other apartments and cars - then I firmly believe more alerts would have been forthcoming.   Especially in the Paynes apartment - where Gerry and Kate spent many hours - after moving out of 5A in the early hours of 4th May.

 

[pathfinder73]

Why indeed?   These dogs could detect miniscule residual odours from blood etc deposited years and years previously.

Either Grimes is lying about the abilities of his dogs or we are being asked to believe that not a single speck of blood had been shed in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars.

I believe Grime was telling the truth about his dogs skills.

I do not believe that not a single spot of blood had ever been shed in all those other apartments and in those other cars over a period of years.

The one glaring difference between checks associated with the McCanns and all the other checks is the amount of time spent - and if the dogs had been made to spend more time in those other apartments and cars - then I firmly believe more alerts would have been forthcoming.   Especially in the Paynes apartment - where Gerry and Kate spent many hours - after moving out of 5A in the early hours of 4th May.

 

If Eddie was bark alerting to microscopic blood specs over many years then he would be barking everywhere and in all apartments 8-)(--) Who needs Keela! Eddie goes in first  for cadaver scent in a missing child case as that is what he was trained to find and if he finds it he locates the strongest source and bark alerts as he did inside 5A. Keela is then brought in to find any human blood traces at the bark alert location.

[John]

Why indeed?   These dogs could detect miniscule residual odours from blood etc deposited years and years previously.

Either Grimes is lying about the abilities of his dogs or we are being asked to believe that not a single speck of blood had been shed in any of the other apartments or in any of the other cars.

I believe Grime was telling the truth about his dogs skills.

I do not believe that not a single spot of blood had ever been shed in all those other apartments and in those other cars over a period of years.

The one glaring difference between checks associated with the McCanns and all the other checks is the amount of time spent - and if the dogs had been made to spend more time in those other apartments and cars - then I firmly believe more alerts would have been forthcoming.   Especially in the Paynes apartment - where Gerry and Kate spent many hours - after moving out of 5A in the early hours of 4th May.

I accept what you post Bence but add that this particular criticism has been addressed.  Martin knew by the dogs reaction or more importantly, lack of reaction, that the other apartments did not provide any interest to the dogs so there was no point in dwelling in them.

You make an excellent point though about the chances of miniscule spots of blood being in the other apartments or on clothing or objects.  This just goes to show that whatever the dogs did alert to in apt 5a was in sufficient enough quantity for the dog to alert.

 

[Mr Gray]

I was not talking about dogs. I was refuting the oft quoted phrase you cannot prove a negative.
The favourite on this forum seems to be Russell's Teapot which was quoted by Russell in relation to whether or not God exists.

I think you are under a misapprehension...first we would have to define the word "prove"..are we talking civil...criminal or absolute.....none of this is defined....

so can the good professor prove that god does not exist...I think not...theres more to his essay than the opening paragraph

[Mr Gray]

Completely wrong Gilet?   You have ignored the main thrust of my point.   The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.

If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?

The yet as unexplained fact were are left with is that the dogs only alerted in apartment 5a where Madeleine was last seen and to possessions belonging to the McCanns.

What are the chances of that happening by accident?  (excuse the pun)

The police who do have contact with bodies were all over 5a and the car and not other apartments..they also had contact with the mccanns clothes...a simple explanation

[Cornelius]

I think you are under a misapprehension...first we would have to define the word "prove"..are we talking civil...criminal or absolute.....none of this is defined....

so can the good professor prove that god does not exist...I think not...theres more to his essay than the opening paragraph

My statement was that as a blanket expression "You cannot prove a negative" is in fact untrue.
You have have done nothing to prove otherwise. Nor will you be able to.

[icabodcrane]

The cadaver dog only  alerted in Apartment 5A (  and none of the others )    because the scent he picked up was unique to that apatment alone

The simplest explanation is that he picked up the scent of the dead body of the child who was reported to have gone missing from there

Other explanations may be sought,  but that is the most logical one

[Mr Gray]

My statement was that as a blanket expression "You cannot prove a negative" is in fact untrue.
You have have done nothing to prove otherwise. Nor will you be able to.

I have never said you cannot prove a negative...and neither did Russell...russells argument is about shifting the burden of proof...not the inability to prove a negative...

the professor you quote took four pages to show its possible to prove a negative...I can do it in one line

can we prove that Swansea City have not won the premiership...the answer is a very simple yes..point proved

[Mr Gray]

The cadaver dog only  alerted in Apartment 5A (  and none of the others )    because the scent he picked up was unique to that apatment alone

The simplest explanation is that he picked up the scent of the dead body of the child who was reported to have gone missing from there

Other explanations may be sought,  but that is the most logical one

That's not what Grime says...and he is the expert not you

[slartibartfast]

The police who do have contact with bodies were all over 5a and the car and not other apartments..they also had contact with the mccanns clothes...a simple explanation

To where's the proof of police body contact?

[pathfinder73]

Yes the police were handling the alerted pants and playing with Cuddle Cat apparently  8-)(--)

[gilet]

Completely wrong Gilet?   You have ignored the main thrust of my point.   The dogs might represent many things to different people but it is the absence of alerts which say more than the actual alerts themself.

If the dogs were alerting to many other substances as some contend then why did they not alert in any other apartment, to anyone else's clothing or personal effects?

The yet as unexplained fact were are left with is that the dogs only alerted in apartment 5a where Madeleine was last seen and to possessions belonging to the McCanns.

What are the chances of that happening by accident?  (excuse the pun)

You are introducing lots of issues which do not relate to any posts I have made. I wonder why?

I have never contended that the dogs were alerting to many other substances. Eddie would only alert to blood and cadaver odour and Keela to blood.  I have no idea what other substances you are referring to.

I have previously explained a perfectly logical and equally possible explanation as to the cadaver odour alerts on all the McCann possessions and in all the locations. Perhaps you missed that?

As for it being an accident that the dogs only alerted to the McCanns, that is precisely the opposite of what I have maintained throughout this thread. I contend it is precisely because there may have been cadaver scent from an unknown source (either a cadaver or some other article) on one item which caused cross-contamination between the items which we know were all in extremely close proximity at certain times.

There was probably not as much cross-contamination between other people's possessions/locations for alerts to occur there.

The fact is that nobody knows the source of the scent and nobody knows the amount of cross-contamination which occurred. No matter how many times people claim that one idea is more likely than another, there simply is no way of knowing what the truth is without that vital forensic corroboration.

What this thread has shown most clearly over the last however many pages is that the dog alerts even if used in a court in some future trial could never have any evidential value because no matter how many alerts there were and where those alerts took place, one can only guess as to the origin of the scent.

And the question of the skill of the handler in determining after a few seconds as to whether any alert was likely or not would also be an issue. Grime may claim that he can work out which rooms/locations/objects need further investigation but would any judge/jury believe him? The evidence of the car video, for example, shows that Grime brought Eddie back to the clearly obvious McCann car time and time again when he showed far more interest elsewhere. And the question of his playing with cuddle cat and his only alerting in its vague vicinity after it was put in a cupboard under a sink where food near where food would have been prepared and any human cuts may have been dealt with/washed would also be raised.

All in all, the alerts are in my view (which co-incidentally is identical to Grime's) only suggestive that cadaver scent may possibly have been present in the locations alerted to. Hardly a convincing peg on which to declare anyone guilty of anything!

[gilet]

To where's the proof of police body contact?

Try watching the video for example of the clothes being examined by the dogs. The police are very obviously handling the clothes. All the clothes which were alerted to just happened to have been bundled into a single cardboard box. That would immediately get the evidence disbarred in a UK court because there was no possibility of knowing if one or more items were contaminated by such disgracefully shoddy handling of the items.

[pathfinder73]

You are introducing lots of issues which do not relate to any posts I have made. I wonder why?

I have never contended that the dogs were alerting to many other substances. Eddie would only alert to blood and cadaver odour and Keela to blood.  I have no idea what other substances you are referring to.

I have previously explained a perfectly logical and equally possible explanation as to the cadaver odour alerts on all the McCann possessions and in all the locations. Perhaps you missed that?

As for it being an accident that the dogs only alerted to the McCanns, that is precisely the opposite of what I have maintained throughout this thread. I contend it is precisely because there may have been cadaver scent from an unknown source (either a cadaver or some other article) on one item which caused cross-contamination between the items which we know were all in extremely close proximity at certain times.

There was probably not as much cross-contamination between other people's possessions/locations for alerts to occur there.

The fact is that nobody knows the source of the scent and nobody knows the amount of cross-contamination which occurred. No matter how many times people claim that one idea is more likely than another, there simply is no way of knowing what the truth is without that vital forensic corroboration.

What this thread has shown most clearly over the last however many pages is that the dog alerts even if used in a court in some future trial could never have any evidential value because no matter how many alerts there were and where those alerts took place, one can only guess as to the origin of the scent.

And the question of the skill of the handler in determining after a few seconds as to whether any alert was likely or not would also be an issue. Grime may claim that he can work out which rooms/locations/objects need further investigation but would any judge/jury believe him? The evidence of the car video, for example, shows that Grime brought Eddie back to the clearly obvious McCann car time and time again when he showed far more interest elsewhere. And the question of his playing with cuddle cat and his only alerting in its vague vicinity after it was put in a cupboard under a sink where food near where food would have been prepared and any human cuts may have been dealt with/washed would also be raised.

All in all, the alerts are in my view (which co-incidentally is identical to Grime's) only suggestive that cadaver scent may possibly have been present in the locations alerted to. Hardly a convincing peg on which to declare anyone guilty of anything!

Why weren't more clothes contaminated? Why not all from same person? Why a kids t-shirt from a missing child case?