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

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #960 on: May 19, 2014, 02:00:33 AM »
Well maybe you should advise North Yorkshire Police that the dog they are deploying now (photo above) at great expense is actually a nappy and piglet dog and they have been conned ?

I doubt very much if they have been conned, he is probably an excellent dog and good at what he does. 
I also doubt if he has been trained using nappies, but I would suggest in the absence of his CV that he most definitely will have been trained using human blood and dead pig.

For many years the Americans have been using dogs trained solely on human scent. 
They alert to nothing else, absolutely no ambiguity or confusion with pig. 

In the search for Jimmy Hoffa they alerted to animal bones.


Quote - In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources.
http://eddieandkeela.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/martin-grime-report-to-pj-mccann-case.html

Cadaver Dog Reacts To ‘Hit’ At Hoffa Dig Site
June 18, 2013 5:03 PM

OAKLAND TWP. (WWJ) – There’s some renewed excitement in the hunt for labor leader Jimmy Hoffa’s remains after a cadaver dog had a “hit” on something Tuesday afternoon at the dig site.

Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard said the dog, as he was walked around the search area, “reacted to some scent” in the ground — but investigators are not sure to what, exactly, the dog was reacting.

“I wouldn’t call it a conclusive hit,” Bouchard told reporters.

“It [the dog] is supposed to be discerning enough to tell the difference between a human or other kinds of animals, but, you know, obviously we’ve had some time lags and differentials and so … we’re not sure if the cadaver dog was in fact conclusive,” Bouchard said.

Earlier, a “suspicious” concrete slab was retrieved by investigators from the Oakland Township field where they have been digging for any sign of Hoffa. It’s still too soon, however, to know whether the slab is anything more than part of an old foundation for a barn.

Bouchard said some bones have been found — which is not unusual on farmland — but none of them are human bones.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2013/06/18/cadaver-dog-reacts-to-hit-at-hoffa-dig-site/
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline pegasus

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #961 on: May 19, 2014, 12:37:41 PM »
In the Hoffa case the dig was at a site for which IIRC ??? police had recieved intelligence that it was a temporary grave from which the body was likely to have been later been moved, and IMO the dog's response is compatible with that.

In the Olsen case, the dig in 1993 used 3 cadaver dogs and a mechanical digger.
About 6 feet down they found a huge cache of rotting meat (steaks etc), and when that was removed, the 3 dogs indicated to keep digging. About 10 feet down they found the body. The perp had deliberately disguised the grave with meat higher up, under the delusion it would fool cadaver dogs. But it did not fool the dogs at all. Proof is available in video footage.

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #962 on: May 30, 2014, 10:33:50 PM »
That's pretty easy to answer Benice, it's all to do with quality and quantity.  The dogs will only react where they detect a scent, if the blood has been cleaned away or bleached there will be nothing to find.  If the blood droplet is too miniscule then even Keela or Eddie might not find it, they might have been good but they weren't infallible. 

What was evident however is that the dogs demeanour changed immediately he entered 5a which to an experienced handler like Martin Grime meant only one thing.

So in answer to Benice's question as to why not a single spot of blood was detected by either Eddie or Keela in any other apartment and whether it is feasible to presume that no blood had ever been spilt in any other apartment checked is to presume that every single other apartment was cleaned or bleached better than Apartment 5A.

Leaving aside the facile arguments that I have read for years from those who suspect the McCanns of involvement that they somehow got hold of a quantity of bleach and deep cleaned apartment 5A which rather goes against the gist of your presumptions, what is the basis for your presumption?  Do you have anything which supports your presumption that Apt 5A was less thoroughly cleaned over a period of many months than other apartments. Or are you simply working from the lack of alerts because that would be extremely flawed logic when attempting to answer the question which was actually posed?




icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #963 on: May 30, 2014, 10:39:27 PM »
I see the dogs are being brought in for a second time

I guess the police must have faith in their abilities

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #964 on: May 30, 2014, 10:43:54 PM »
So in answer to Benice's question as to why not a single spot of blood was detected by either Eddie or Keela in any other apartment and whether it is feasible to presume that no blood had ever been spilt in any other apartment checked is to presume that every single other apartment was cleaned or bleached better than Apartment 5A.

Leaving aside the facile arguments that I have read for years from those who suspect the McCanns of involvement that they somehow got hold of a quantity of bleach and deep cleaned apartment 5A which rather goes against the gist of your presumptions, what is the basis for your presumption?  Do you have anything which supports your presumption that Apt 5A was less thoroughly cleaned over a period of many months than other apartments. Or are you simply working from the lack of alerts because that would be extremely flawed logic when attempting to answer the question which was actually posed?

A while back, Anne (I think her name is) produced something fascinating I'd never seen before: a list of all the people (besides Paul Gordon and his shaving cut) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a ...

It is indeed remarkable that, apparently, not a drop of blood was shed anywhere else ...

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #965 on: May 30, 2014, 10:45:13 PM »
I see the dogs are being brought in for a second time

I guess the police must have faith in their abilities

Properly handled dogs might be a very useful aid in this, second, investigation.

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #966 on: May 30, 2014, 10:54:44 PM »
I see the dogs are being brought in for a second time

I guess the police must have faith in their abilities

One thing is for certain. Martin Grime will not be handling the dogs that SY use or that the PJ use with SY observers. They are not as easily swayed as the PJ under Amaral was by Harrison's bigging up of his friend's dogs.

« Last Edit: May 30, 2014, 10:57:18 PM by gilet »

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #967 on: May 30, 2014, 10:56:35 PM »

A while back, Anne (I think her name is) produced something fascinating I'd never seen before: a list of all the people (besides Paul Gordon and his shaving cut) who did, or might have, bled in apartment 5a ...

It is indeed remarkable that, apparently, not a drop of blood was shed anywhere else ...

Indeed the very idea is preposterous. Unless, of course, John can back up his idea that all the other apartments were for some reason cleaned far more thoroughly than Apartment 5A ever was even though the same cleaning staff were likely responsible for many of the other apartments as well.

Silkywhiskers

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #968 on: May 30, 2014, 11:20:18 PM »
And still the aspersions against Grime and his dogs continue.

From the same people who call others nasty, vile, libellous, etc.

PC Grime and canine units Eddie and Keela were NOT INCOMPETENT!!!!!

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #969 on: May 30, 2014, 11:39:01 PM »
This is all yesterdays fish and chip wrappers.
New searches new cops new K9s and new handlers or had you not noticed?
According to Insider "sauces" on this very forum (hastily retracted without explanation) Martin Grime is filling his pockets with Scooby snacks and heading out to PdL even as we speak...

Silkywhiskers

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #970 on: May 30, 2014, 11:56:53 PM »
According to Insider "sauces" on this very forum (hastily retracted without explanation) Martin Grime is filling his pockets with Scooby snacks and heading out to PdL even as we speak...

How condescending.

Just another belittlement of the professionals trying to find Madeleine.


ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #971 on: May 31, 2014, 08:09:14 AM »
One thing is for certain. Martin Grime will not be handling the dogs that SY use or that the PJ use with SY observers. They are not as easily swayed as the PJ under Amaral was by Harrison's bigging up of his friend's dogs.

Fair point, although I don't think there's too much doubt that Harrison either woke up to the fact that he'd been 'sold a pup', or that he was, himself, propagating an unsustainable lie, and simply stopped trying.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #972 on: May 31, 2014, 08:12:54 AM »
And still the aspersions against Grime and his dogs continue.

From the same people who call others nasty, vile, libellous, etc.

PC Grime and canine units Eddie and Keela were NOT INCOMPETENT!!!!!

Dream on ...

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #973 on: May 31, 2014, 08:19:16 AM »
Dream on ...

No ferryman. 8-)(--) 8-)(--) 8-)(--)

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #974 on: May 31, 2014, 08:58:56 AM »
"2.5 - 3 hours" is the minimum which the CSST experiment found to be required for consistent detection (by 5 out of 5 dogs).

Found your quote. You don't believe dogs can detect cadaver before 2.5 hours? So you had the child moving to the living room and possibly died at 9:15 then there's no way there would be any cadaver alerts. That theory should be put in the bin. The time that fits is the routine change and with the contradictions about the visit then any fool can see it's where you would investigate a possible death inside 5A.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2014, 09:01:23 AM by pathfinder73 »
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.