Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 355030 times)

0 Members and 9 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jackie Sparrow

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1230 on: July 27, 2014, 09:15:37 PM »
If man is trained for mental math, 2+2=4 then most times the mental math will be right. sometime wrong but not wrong all the time. This dog is trained to smell death. If he sometimes got it wrong and say false alert most time he is right still. Why then say the dog is always wrong only in PRaia da luz? The trainer does not think for the dog. If the trainer try to thinks for the dog the dog still know he is right and bark. You say these things because you fear the dog. The dog is mostly good and right not all the time wrong like you try to say. always 2+2=4 even if you want the answer as 5. Thank you.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:17:26 AM by John »


Offline Brietta

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1232 on: July 27, 2014, 09:40:52 PM »
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.

I believe he jumped into the water in his excitement and got into difficulty; it cannot be denied that he was an excitable animal as we have proof of that from his behaviour outside 5a; that his handler had to follow him across the water, risking contaminating the scene suggests it was to retrieve the dog rather than to confirm the finding of Mrs Harron’s body the presence of which was obvious even to the humans in attendance.     
"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 #1233 on: July 27, 2014, 10:18:42 PM »
I believe he jumped into the water in his excitement and got into difficulty; it cannot be denied that he was an excitable animal as we have proof of that from his behaviour outside 5a; that his handler had to follow him across the water, risking contaminating the scene suggests it was to retrieve the dog rather than to confirm the finding of Mrs Harron’s body the presence of which was obvious even to the humans in attendance.     
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank.

Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra car used by Hamilton because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 10:24:16 PM by pegasus »

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1234 on: July 27, 2014, 10:23:40 PM »
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank. Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something? Eddie alerted in the red Lantra because the body had previously been in it.

'Hello Miss'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE
Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1235 on: July 27, 2014, 10:26:21 PM »
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank.

Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra car used by Hamilton because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something?

 @)(++(*
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline pegasus

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1236 on: July 27, 2014, 10:31:35 PM »
Maybe Eddie was was not signalling the body concealed by Hamilton under the slabs maybe he was just having a good squawk on the opposite bank to warm up after getting wet?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 10:34:26 PM by pegasus »

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1237 on: July 27, 2014, 10:35:38 PM »
I believe he jumped into the water in his excitement and got into difficulty; it cannot be denied that he was an excitable animal as we have proof of that from his behaviour outside 5a; that his handler had to follow him across the water, risking contaminating the scene suggests it was to retrieve the dog rather than to confirm the finding of Mrs Harron’s body the presence of which was obvious even to the humans in attendance.     

He jumped in the water for one reason - to follow the scent to the source. The dog got excited because of the scent inside 5A and found scent when passing the hire car. They knew the key had blood on it from Keela so what was the reason to conduct another test with Eddie to bury the key under sand?

At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
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 Brietta

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1238 on: July 27, 2014, 10:36:53 PM »
Eddie signalled the location of the body. After following Eddie to where he barked, then the handlers could smell it. The idea that the humans found the body is false. Eddie led the humans to the body by signalling it. The idea that Eddie fell into the water accidentally through "over-excitement" is false. He jumped in to get to the body on the opposite bank.

Next will peeps be claiming that Eddie signalled in the red Lantra car used by Hamilton because he was cued to do so, or he was a tad over-excited, or pining for the fjords, or it was his birthday or something?

I did not say that the humans found Mrs Harron's body; I said they could smell the decomposition; there was no need for Eddie to jump in to get to the opposite bank, his job had already been done with his alert.

Are you saying he was not an over excitable animal despite proof that he was? 

We did not see him at the water, but we did see him in action at PDL - outside 5a - playing with CC in the villa - picking up clothing in his mouth - bouncing off a wall in the garage: surely none of these were trained responses.
"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 #1239 on: July 27, 2014, 10:59:08 PM »
I did not say that the humans found Mrs Harron's body; I said they could smell the decomposition; there was no need for Eddie to jump in to get to the opposite bank, his job had already been done with his alert.

Are you saying he was not an over excitable animal despite proof that he was? 

We did not see him at the water, but we did see him in action at PDL - outside 5a - playing with CC in the villa - picking up clothing in his mouth - bouncing off a wall in the garage: surely none of these were trained responses.
Eddie's barking, after going to the opposite bank, at the exact location of the body, was a trained response.
Eddie's barking, in the Lantra which had been borrowed by Hamilton, was a trained response.
Eddie achieved closure for the family.

And BTW Eddie did not signal before entering the water. He signalled after emerging from the water on the further bank, again this is a trained behaviour, to find the exact location.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 11:07:12 PM by pegasus »

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1240 on: July 27, 2014, 11:07:45 PM »
I did not say that the humans found Mrs Harron's body; I said they could smell the decomposition; there was no need for Eddie to jump in to get to the opposite bank, his job had already been done with his alert.

Are you saying he was not an over excitable animal despite proof that he was? 

We did not see him at the water, but we did see him in action at PDL - outside 5a - playing with CC in the villa - picking up clothing in his mouth - bouncing off a wall in the garage: surely none of these were trained responses.

They could not smell anything until Eddie located the body. The dog is trained to follow the scent to the source so if that means jumping in rivers or over rocks, beds and sofas so what? His job is to locate the source of scent. He found two sources inside 5A. Behind the sofa and at the wardrobe. If the missing child did die from a fall from the sofa and you had to cover it up then you'd probably move the body to the wardrobe out of sight. You would later move it from the wardrobe and out of 5A (safer to do and hide in the dark) after you've made plans to where you were going to take it. A body didn't go inside a bin located near to 5A or stay at the wasteland because Smithman was seen passing many eye witnesses and heading towards the beach.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 11:14:43 PM 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.

Offline Jackie Sparrow

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1241 on: July 27, 2014, 11:18:42 PM »
Eddie's barking, after going to the opposite bank, at the exact location of the body, was a trained response.
Eddie's barking, in the Lantra which had been borrowed by Hamilton, was a trained response.
Eddie achieved closure for the family.

And BTW Eddie did not signal before entering the water. He signalled after emerging from the water on the further bank, again this is a trained behaviour, to find the exact location.

Thank you. Yes I agree. The dog is trained well. People should not fear good things. It looks like lies and dogs only do the training not lies. People say the dog is good but they lie only because they fear death. The dog is good.

Offline pegasus

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1242 on: July 28, 2014, 07:39:20 PM »
Back to the dogs: Tito and Muzzy, are they going back to PDL again, anyone know?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 03:50:23 AM by John »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1243 on: July 28, 2014, 09:41:15 PM »
In the investigation into the murder of Attracta Harron, where was there a line-up of cars?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2014, 04:00:56 AM by John »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #1244 on: July 28, 2014, 09:53:59 PM »
I suppose the other point about the Attracta Harron case is that, before Eddie was deployed, there was (according to Grime) an extensive human inspection of the vehicle which yielded no clues.

Then Eddie was deployed and reacted, and within minutes of his reaction, a spot was located from which the victim's DNA was extracted, tending to suggest that Eddie "picked" the spot with some precision ...