Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[pegasus]

Just a reminder of the huge value of cadaver dogs in clearing an innocent person.
A prime example is the Lawrence case - a man was arrested - two houses (one in York and one in North Shields) were searched by a cadaver dog - the dog did NOT signal - the man was released.
This canine intelligence enabled police, who are obviously very determined to solve this case, to focus on other possible solutions. Without the cadaver dog, that man man might still be under suspicion, and police would never have progressed to the current drilling and canine investigation of a totally different location. And, as seems likely, if the dog finds nothing there, this will enable police to rule it out and move on to another lead, until eventually the dog solves the case.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/claudia-lawrence-recap-updates-police-3900751

[Alfred R Jones]

Just a reminder of the huge value of cadaver dogs in clearing an innocent person.
A prime example is the Lawrence case - a man was arrested - two houses (one in York and one in North Shields) were searched by a cadaver dog - the dog did NOT signal - the man was released.
This canine intelligence enabled police, who are obviously very determined to solve this case, to focus on other possible solutions. Without the cadaver dog, that man man might still be under suspicion, and police would never have progressed to the current drilling and canine investigation of a totally different location. And, as seems likely, if the dog finds nothing there, this will enable police to rule it out and move on to another lead, until eventually the dog solves the case.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/claudia-lawrence-recap-updates-police-3900751

How on earth does the dog not signalling in this man's house prove he had nothing to do with Claudia's disappearance?  This is nonsense.

[Brietta]

( And re dogs who can detect scent coming from underwater - here is an expert called Eddie -
http://i.imgur.com/vldy8zT.jpg?1-EVRD-Eddie-UK_Justice_Forum )

Nope, pegasus, Attracta was on the river bank and the smell of decomposition was such that the human nose of the policeman could detect it ... Eddie just got excited (as he was somewhat prone to do) and either fell or jumped into the water.

The Smith family sighting has not been ruled in or out, so until it is discovered who the carrier was, I think the Smith sighting has to stand as a possibility.
The Met were still going with JT's sighting until recently when they apparently identified the carrier ... I think it is interesting that in both sightings it was said specifically that the man did not look like a tourist, which is not to say he was one of the arguidos.
But questioning of them and the other witnesses might turn up some information, we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.


For information

Some time ago Anna posted a video showing water dogs being trained ... awesome! ... so I developed an interest from that and can recommend you visit this site as some of the posts are informative.
I was reading posts on a forum about working dogs where the discussion was about finding bodies in water.  The poster was Nancy Jocoy post *43. 
I found it interesting that although the trainer mentioned wasn’t a water dog trainer s/he was working towards certifying cadaver dogs … in this case dogs and handlers working in water. The trainer mentioned seems to be generic and not a specialist in water dogs … but interesting that the skills required seem to be interchangeable.
Detection work is detection work, whether on land or water.

"Jim, I had an amazing day of water training yesterday with a police master trainer. And he is not even a water dog trainer but a seasoned K9 handler/trainer for a department."
  http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f32/hrd-historical-vs-fresh-24599/index5.html[

[pegasus]

(From another thread)

Nope, pegasus, Attracta was on the river bank and the smell of decomposition was such that the human nose of the policeman could detect it ... Eddie just got excited (as he was somewhat prone to do) and either fell or jumped into the water.
...

According to what I read, Eddie deliberately jumped into the stream specifically to swim to the opposite bank, where he found the body, and alerted.

[Brietta]

From another thread) According to what I read, Eddie deliberately jumped into the stream specifically to swim to the opposite bank, where he found the body, and alerted.

Possibly so ... and Eddie did bark ... but the body could also be smelled by the handlers.  His excitable behaviour put himself at risk when he was almost swept away and is akin to running about with 'evidence' in his mouth as we have seen from video footage.
I know that different dogs have different ways of alerting ... but constable Ellis's dog Frankie did not jump into the water although he and his handler were also on the scene.


Attracta Harron : Martin Grime and his cadaver dog Eddie..
This time Grime was not told to 'play down' his dogs findings.

A murder trial heard today of the "distinct smell of decay" after a specialist police dog uncovered the make-shift riverbank grave of pensioner Attracta Harron four months after going missing walking home from Mass in December 2003.

Dungannon Crown Court also heard that the riverbank bordered the Concess Road home in Sion Mills of 23-year-old farm labourer Trevor William Hamilton who denies murdering the 65-year-old mother of five on December 11 2003.

Mrs Harron`s naked body, a meal sack for a shroud, was uncovered in the make-shift grave on April 5, 2004 by one of two specially trained police dogs from South Yorkshire Constabulary who had been drafted in to help in solving her disappearance.

Constable John Ellis, said he realised the dog operated by his team-mate Martin Grime, a dog called "Eddie", a Springer Spaniel, had found something, because of his barking.

He added he continued searching with his dog "Frankie" a Border Collie, and that when he approached Constable Grime`s position, "there was a distinct smell of decay".

Constable Grime had told the court that as he searched the hedgerows and riverbank "Eddie" jumped into the stream and at one stage was being swept away by the current.

However, the dog managed to swim back up and jumped unto a pile of stones on the further bank and started barking.

"I immediately noted that he had found something and I made my way to the bank and saw what he had found," said Constable Grime.

The Sheffield based officer revealed this was the second time his team had allegedly uncovered evidence in the case after being called in by Strabane police to help in the search for the retired librarian.

He revealed that in February 2004, during a search of Hamilton`s mother`s burnt out car, "Eddie", allegedly uncovered traces of blood which the prosecution claim came from Mrs Harron.

Blood samples recovered from a mat in the red Hyundai Lantra car when tested for DNA, showed there was a billion to one chance it had not come from the pensioner.

Constable Ellis also claimed that his dog, "Frankie" also uncovered something in the rear of the car.
He said that unlike "Eddie", for some reason his dog did not stay in the back of the car, but jumped from the vehicle and "alerted me with the dog looking back into the car".

Earlier the court heard that the cause of the fire which gutted the car could not be established.
The court heard that the car was burnt at Hamilton`s home the day the retired librarian disappeared while walking to her Strabane home across the border after attending daily Mass at Murlough Church in Lifford, County Donegal.

Forensic expert Denis McCauley, said while he found no traces of an accelerant such as petrol, paraffin or diesel, he had established the fire had begun in the interior of the vehicle and spread to the engine compartment.

The forensic expert said from follow-up examinations carried out in March and April, 2004, he was able to say that the driver`s window was open between 14 and 15 inches, at the time of the blaze.

Mr McCauley said that the three other windows were probably closed, but had all four windows been shut the fire could have extinguished itself, by starving itself of oxygen.

However, he agreed with the defence that a rag doused in petrol could have been thrown into the car and perished in the fire, leaving no trace.
At hearing.
u.tv © UTV News
http://www.u.tv/News/Attracta-Harron-case-latest/0c618edf-84ee-48ba-9f7c-f9933a8f86e2

[pathfinder73]

Nope, pegasus, Attracta was on the river bank and the smell of decomposition was such that the human nose of the policeman could detect it ... Eddie just got excited (as he was somewhat prone to do) and either fell or jumped into the water.

The Smith family sighting has not been ruled in or out, so until it is discovered who the carrier was, I think the Smith sighting has to stand as a possibility.
The Met were still going with JT's sighting until recently when they apparently identified the carrier ... I think it is interesting that in both sightings it was said specifically that the man did not look like a tourist, which is not to say he was one of the arguidos.
But questioning of them and the other witnesses might turn up some information, we'll just have to wait and see what happens next.

Constable Grime had told the court that as he searched the hedgerows and riverbank "Eddie" jumped into the stream and at one stage was being swept away by the current.

 However, the dog managed to swim back up and jumped unto a pile of stones on the further bank and started barking.

 "I immediately noted that he had found something and I made my way to the bank and saw what he had found," said Constable Grime.

Constable John Ellis, said he realised the dog operated by his team-mate Martin Grime, a dog called "Eddie", a Springer Spaniel, had found something, because of his barking.

 He added he continued searching with his dog "Frankie" a Border Collie, and that when he approached Constable Grime`s position, "there was a distinct smell of decay".


Read full harrowing details of her murder.

http://attracta.martinharran.com/

[pathfinder73]

He followed the cadaver scent and if that meant getting wet in order to follow the scent so be it 8-)(--)
Dogs like to play with toys and pick them up in their mouth. A second test was performed on the toy for that reason.  [ removed speculation ]

[Brietta]

He followed the cadaver scent and if that meant getting wet in order to follow the scent so be it 8-)(--) His work was first class unlike your posts. Dogs like to play with toys and pick them up in their mouth. A second test was performed on the toy for that reason. Grime will not play down his findings if this case comes to trial 

It appears you take exception to it being pointed out that Eddie did not appear to be following his ‘trained response’ when he alerted to Ms Harron’s body, with his excitable reaction putting himself and possibly his handler at risk; and also by contaminating items when lifting them in his mouth as in PDL. 

Let’s imagine for a moment Eddie had been trained to alert to explosives rather than cadaver: how happy would you or his handler have been to have had him jumping eagerly on his find or running about with high explosives in his mouth?

Don't you worry your pretty little head about Mr Grime underplaying anything at any future trial ... the circumstance of him being called to give evidence just will not arise.

[Jackie Sparrow]

It appears you take exception to it being pointed out that Eddie did not appear to be following his ‘trained response’ when he alerted to Ms Harron’s body, with his excitable reaction putting himself and possibly his handler at risk; and also by contaminating items when lifting them in his mouth as in PDL. 

Let’s imagine for a moment Eddie had been trained to alert to explosives rather than cadaver: how happy would you or his handler have been to have had him jumping eagerly on his find or running about with high explosives in his mouth?

Don't you worry your pretty little head about Mr Grime underplaying anything at any future trial ... the circumstance of him being called to give evidence just will not arise.

Is this dog good or bad? It looks maybe some people think bad? What is this dog's trained response? Do people know or do people guess? How does the dog put the trainer at risk? The dog does not think for the trainer, the trainer thinks for the trainer. Is this dog trained to react to explosives? If so why a bark and not a freeze you see with bomb dogs. Different dog, different rules. Is it more harm to wash an item clean than toss into the air? Some dogs dig to find an alert. The digging dog may disturb evidence. Is the digging dog a good or bad dog because he digs. Different dogs with different training. To imagine the dog like this is not good. He is a dog that tries to find death not bombs. Dig, bark, freeze it does not matter. To alert or not alert matters. I think this dog is good. I think this dog is sometimes misunderstood. I also think sometimes this dog is understood and feared. The fear makes people attack the dog. I have no fear that the dog is a good dog.

[Alfred R Jones]

Dogs neither lie nor take the moral standpoint of honesty is always the best policy.  They are dogs and therefore they have no concept of truth and deceit.  Dogs cannot be trained to lie (apart from on the ground) but they can sometimes get things wrong owing to unwitting (or otherwise) handler bias.  The case of Zampo a sniffer dog in Scandanavia is one such you may care to investigate, there are also studies on the subject of dog handler bias which you will find if you google intelligently.  I hope you find them instructive.

[Jackie Sparrow]

Dogs neither lie nor take the moral standpoint of honesty is always the best policy.  They are dogs and therefore they have no concept of truth and deceit.  Dogs cannot be trained to lie (apart from on the ground) but they can sometimes get things wrong owing to unwitting (or otherwise) handler bias.  The case of Zampo a sniffer dog in Scandanavia is one such you may care to investigate, there are also studies on the subject of dog handler bias which you will find if you google intelligently.  I hope you find them instructive.

Thank you Alfred R Jones. I agree dogs do not lie. A trained dog is sometime wrong and mostly right. An untrained dog is sometime right and mostly wrong. This dog was trained so should be mostly right. Why do people say he is always wrong with Madeleine McCann? I think the dog knows his training. I think the dog is doing his job good.

[Brietta]

Thank you Alfred R Jones. I agree dogs do not lie. A trained dog is sometime wrong and mostly right. An untrained dog is sometime right and mostly wrong. This dog was trained so should be mostly right. Why do people say he is always wrong with Madeleine McCann? I think the dog knows his training. I think the dog is doing his job good.

The dog is trained to indicate where evidence may be found.  No evidence relating to Madeleine's disappearance was found.  Therefore the dog alerts mean nothing ... as their handler has stated in the PJ files.

[pegasus]

The reason Eddie jumped into the water during the Attracta Harron search was to swim to the opposite bank where he found the body concealed under slabs and alerted.
Allegations that Eddie fell in by accident are incorrect.

[Benice]

The dog did his training good. The forensic found nothing. The dog only does his job not forensic job. With a judge it means nothing but the dog is still good. People fear the dog so say the dog is no good. The dog is good. The forensic is not so the doctors are free to say find a body. One day this may change but today they are free. The dog is trained so mostly right. People say mostly wrong but he is still good dog. This is the fear people have of a dog who is trained to be right. The dog makes people feel fear. Why?

The dogs are brilliant.   But even the most highly trained dog cannot tell it's handler:-


Whose scent he alerted to.

How old the scent is - (could be decades old)

Whether the scent is from a dead body or body 'bits' which became separated from a live person.

Whether the scent is from underground or from on the surface.

Whether it has been inadvertently transferred there from an outside source.

Whether it originated at that spot  - or has drifted there from elsewhere. 

or - ( and it has to be said because it can happen) -  Whether the dog has been cued either consciously or unconsciously by its handler.


And it is because of all these various reasons for an alert -  that unless for instance a body is found or a confession is obtained -  it cannot be claimed that an alert by a dog proves that  a dead body must have been present at some time in a particular place.

[slartibartfast]

Dogs neither lie nor take the moral standpoint of honesty is always the best policy.  They are dogs and therefore they have no concept of truth and deceit.  Dogs cannot be trained to lie (apart from on the ground) but they can sometimes get things wrong owing to unwitting (or otherwise) handler bias.  The case of Zampo a sniffer dog in Scandanavia is one such you may care to investigate, there are also studies on the subject of dog handler bias which you will find if you google intelligently.  I hope you find them instructive.

Agreed, dogs alert to what they are trained to alert to.