Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 355054 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #870 on: April 29, 2014, 02:44:33 PM »
Absolutely and if you look at what I posted I didn't simply pick things at random. I identified the items and locations alerted to and explained the direct connection between them.

Incidentally, what is the actual delay in producing these photos that you promised?  Has somebody been on holiday all this time? Is the migraine the most epic in all of human history? Or why are they taking so long to appear?

There is no need to be facetious towards Serendipity.  The photos are on a hard drive which was damaged but since you raise the issue I will telephone them to get an update.
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 Benice

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #871 on: April 29, 2014, 03:14:52 PM »
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.

But that doesn't solve the problem  John.     You are saying that because of the dog's initial reaction  - Grime knew that there was not even the tiniest speck of blood in any of the other apartments or the other cars for the dogs to find and alert to in the first place.   

So we are back to being asked to believe that no-one had ever bled in any of the other apartments or cars  - for years on end.    I do not believe that is even remotely possible.   Do you?   Does anyone?

 
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #872 on: April 29, 2014, 09:52:50 PM »
You do post absolute rubbish at times.

I am avoiding nothing.

I accept ALL possibilities but am not prepared as you are to base justice on a pure guess as to what is most likely to have happened. I prefer evidence and the dog alerts are categorically not evidence, they are merely suggestive indications.

If no one was missing I may tend to agree with you.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Cornelius

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #873 on: April 29, 2014, 10:01:05 PM »
If no one was missing I may tend to agree with you.

Me too!
But I love the idea that a poster on an internet forum is the arbiter of justice.Cool.
I wonder what the Law Lords on down through the chain of command think of that; not to mention the Portuguese Judiciary.
Never was their gast so flabbered. On is positively dumbfounded.

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #874 on: April 29, 2014, 10:16:30 PM »
Just what exactly are we arguing here? Are we happy to suggest the dogs are of little value because they are only "suggestive indications"?

Only in this case. All other dogs in all other cases are brilliant. I think it was something to do with the flight to Portugal or possibly the heat...?

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #875 on: April 29, 2014, 10:18:49 PM »
Only in this case. All other dogs in all other cases are brilliant. I think it was something to do with the flight to Portugal or possibly the heat...?
Apart from Zampo too, the dog that falsely alerted dozens of times in Sweden.

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #876 on: April 29, 2014, 10:21:06 PM »
Apart from Zampo too, the dog that falsely alerted dozens of times in Sweden.

That was probably the cold.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #877 on: April 29, 2014, 10:24:44 PM »
That was probably the cold.
I doubt it.  Much more likely unconscious handler bias.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #878 on: April 29, 2014, 11:50:19 PM »
Apart from Zampo too, the dog that falsely alerted dozens of times in Sweden.

Zampo wasn't on this case so who gives a shit. Eddie and Keela have a good reputation. Why?
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #879 on: April 30, 2014, 12:04:30 AM »
Zampo wasn't on this case so who gives a shit. Eddie and Keela have a good reputation. Why?
There's no need to be so rude is there?  Zampo may not have been on this particular case, but he does demonstrate that even cadaver dogs with good reputations can sometimes make mistakes. 

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #880 on: April 30, 2014, 12:17:53 AM »
There's no need to be so rude is there?  Zampo may not have been on this particular case, but he does demonstrate that even cadaver dogs with good reputations can sometimes make mistakes.

That is an abstract argument though isn't it  ?

Let's consider the cadaver dog alerts in  this  case 

There is no reason at all to  'assume'  he was mistaken,  is there  ?  ...  I mean,  what if his alert was correct and he did  pick up the scent of the missing child's dead body in Apartment 5A because she had died there  ? 

That is entirely possible, isn't it  ? 

Offline Benice

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #881 on: April 30, 2014, 12:30:57 AM »
But that doesn't solve the problem  John.     You are saying that because of the dog's initial reaction  - Grime knew that there was not even the tiniest speck of blood in any of the other apartments or the other cars for the dogs to find and alert to in the first place.   

So we are back to being asked to believe that no-one had ever bled in any of the other apartments or cars  - for years on end.    I do not believe that is even remotely possible.   Do you?   Does anyone?

No takers then - why not ?
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #882 on: April 30, 2014, 12:35:01 AM »
No takers then - why not ?

How does Keela alert to blood? What does she do? Does she bark and alert to it like Eddie? Why does Eddie go in first? Is it to do Keela's job?
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Benice

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #883 on: April 30, 2014, 12:47:28 AM »
How does Keela alert to blood? What does she do? Does she bark and alert to it like Eddie? Why does Eddie go in first? Is it to do Keela's job?

What has that got to do with my post asking if it is feasible that no-one had ever bled in any of the other apartments or any of the other cars for years and years.     I don't think it is feasible/.   Do you?   And if you do - then please explain why.


The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #884 on: April 30, 2014, 08:30:20 AM »
That is an abstract argument though isn't it  ?

Let's consider the cadaver dog alerts in  this  case 

There is no reason at all to  'assume'  he was mistaken,  is there  ?  ...  I mean,  what if his alert was correct and he did  pick up the scent of the missing child's dead body in Apartment 5A because she had died there  ? 

That is entirely possible, isn't it  ?
I have not assumed anything, just posited the theory that like Zampo, and many other working dogs that have been proven to be susceptible to handler bias, that Eddie and / or Keela were similarly affected.  Anything's possible, but when weighing up the possibilities based on what we know of the case I would say my theory is more likely than the one that the dog alerted to Madeleine's corpse.  Just my opinion of course.