Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Alice Purjorick]

How does one calibrate a dog in the way one can "tune" a tool used to detect a particular metal?

It can only be "tuned" to detect a particular metal if that metal in all its forms has a conductivity that does not overlap with that of another metal. If it does the detector will detect either or; then reach for the shovel to find out which.
Allegedly, like as long ago as in the 1970s, it was found dogs can be trained to alert to specific odours.
Not a lot of difference except one is electromechanical and the "how" is easier to figure, the other isn't.

[Brietta]

It can only be "tuned" to detect a particular metal if that metal in all its forms has a conductivity that does not overlap with that of another metal. If it does the detector will detect either or; then reach for the shovel to find out which.
Allegedly, like as long ago as in the 1970s, it was found dogs can be trained to alert to specific odours.
Not a lot of difference except one is electromechanical and the "how" is easier to figure, the other isn't.

One is quantifiable ... the other can only be assessed if there is evidence in place for verification.

Would it be presumptive of me to assume that you already know this?

[Alice Purjorick]

One is quantifiable ... the other can only be assessed if there is evidence in place for verification.

Would it be presumptive of me to assume that you already know this?

So your detector is set for silver and it alarms at something underground. How confident are you it is silver before you dig? it could be copper which within normal operating constraints has a not dissimilar conductivity.
We have done the dog bit before about its olfactory senses being so acute it could smell something not detectable by human eye or device. Because you can't see it or detect it does not mean it is not there.
Back to the plot. Should the dog or detector alarm my first reaction will be it has alarmed to what it should have on the basis it is calibrated [trained] properly. If it isn't why the hell are you using it? That is a rhetorical question btw.
To determine what precisely triggered the alarm will require operator intervention. In the case of the detector a shovel and metallurgist will come in handy. In the case of the dog there is the added disadvantage detailed in the first para above.
I think what I mean should now be quite clear. Although you do need to understand the concept of no single right answer.

[Mr Gray]

So your detector is set for silver and it alarms at something underground. How confident are you it is silver before you dig? it could be copper which within normal operating constraints has a not dissimilar conductivity.
We have done the dog bit before about its olfactory senses being so acute it could smell something not detectable by human eye or device. Because you can't see it or detect it does not mean it is not there.
Back to the plot. Should the dog or detector alarm my first reaction will be it has alarmed to what it should have on the basis it is calibrated [trained] properly. If it isn't why the hell are you using it? That is a rhetorical question btw.
To determine what precisely triggered the alarm will require operator intervention. In the case of the detector a shovel and metallurgist will come in handy. In the case of the dog there is the added disadvantage detailed in the first para above.
I think what I mean should now be quite clear. Although you do need to understand the concept of no single right answer.

The answer to the whole question of the dogs is how reliable is the alert. It seems that that is a question the PJ wanted an answer to... The best person to answer is Grime. The PJ requested Grime was asked this question twice in his rogatory interview... Unfortunately he failed to answer .... What a shame

[ferryman]

So your detector is set for silver and it alarms at something underground. How confident are you it is silver before you dig? it could be copper which within normal operating constraints has a not dissimilar conductivity.
We have done the dog bit before about its olfactory senses being so acute it could smell something not detectable by human eye or device. Because you can't see it or detect it does not mean it is not there.
Back to the plot. Should the dog or detector alarm my first reaction will be it has alarmed to what it should have on the basis it is calibrated [trained] properly. If it isn't why the hell are you using it? That is a rhetorical question btw.
To determine what precisely triggered the alarm will require operator intervention. In the case of the detector a shovel and metallurgist will come in handy. In the case of the dog there is the added disadvantage detailed in the first para above.
I think what I mean should now be quite clear. Although you do need to understand the concept of no single right answer.

When Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key he alerted to something within his trained parameters.

It was just of zero use to the investigation.

And when Eddie, first, couldn't find a scent on cuddle-cat, then (after it was hidden), apparently, could the question arose of whether there was a scent or whether there wasn't.

There is the question of handler-bias (documented in the study Alfred found and referred to by Grime in his profile) that can further diminish the accuracy/reliability of your detector.

[G-Unit]

When Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key he alerted to something within his trained parameters.

It was just of zero use to the investigation.

And when Eddie, first, couldn't find a scent on cuddle-cat, then (after it was hidden), apparently, could the question arose of whether there was a scent or whether there wasn't.

There is the question of handler-bias (documented in the study Alfred found and referred to by Grime in his profile) that can further diminish the accuracy/reliability of your detector.

None of which means Eddie was wrong. He could be, but he could also be right.

[ferryman]

None of which means Eddie was wrong. He could be, but he could also be right.

Eddie was bang-on right with the ignition key (twice!), but has to have erred with cuddle-cat, either in failing to detect a scent (first time) or in "detecting" (a non-existent "scent") second time.

Same with the clothes.

[G-Unit]

Eddie was bang-on right with the ignition key (twice!), but has to have erred with cuddle-cat, either in failing to detect a scent (first time) or in "detecting" (a non-existent "scent") second time.

Same with the clothes.

Eddie alerted only to places and things connected to the family of Madeleine McCann. All the other locations and things he screened produced no alerts whatsoever. What a coincidence!

[ferryman]

Eddie alerted only to places and things connected to the family of Madeleine McCann. All the other locations and things he screened produced no alerts whatsoever. What a coincidence!

After an inordinate amount of time, direction, re-direction and encouragement, distinct from whistle-stop tours of all other places.

A refresher-reading of the example Alfred found is needed, I think ....

[Alice Purjorick]

When Eddie alerted to spots of Gerry's blood on the ignition key he alerted to something within his trained parameters.

It was just of zero use to the investigation.

And when Eddie, first, couldn't find a scent on cuddle-cat, then (after it was hidden), apparently, could the question arose of whether there was a scent or whether there wasn't.

There is the question of handler-bias (documented in the study Alfred found and referred to by Grime in his profile) that can further diminish the accuracy/reliability of your detector.

Really?
Do you agree or disagree with the broad concept of what I have said ?.
See if you can answer without using the words Grime, Eddie, Keela, Amaral, Cuddle, cat key fob or exparte.
It shouldn't be too difficult.

[ferryman]

Really?
Do you agree or disagree with the broad concept of what I have said ?.
See if you can answer without using the words Grime, Eddie, Keela, Amaral, Cuddle, cat key fob or exparte.
It shouldn't be too difficult.

In a thread inviting discussion of whether victim detection dogs are reliable, why would I want to be discussing metal detectors?

And why are you trying to take this thread off-topic?

[Alice Purjorick]

In a thread inviting discussion of whether victim detection dogs are reliable, why would I want to be discussing metal detectors?

And why are you trying to take this thread off-topic?

Alf and Brietta raised both I followed their lead.

[Eleanor]

Okay.  Back On Topic.

[ferryman]

Alf and Brietta raised both I followed their lead.

Why could Eddie detect a scent on clothing in the gym he could find no trace of in the villa?

Why did Eddie also need two stabs at detecting an, apparent, "scent" on cuddle-cat?

Why was Eddie kept an inordinate length of time in one apartment but a minute fraction of the time in any of the others?

Why was Grime handed a video of the inspection of vehicles for personal, promotional, use?

Why did he choose that inspection (of vehicles) alone to wear the anti cross-contamination gear of his trade?

[G-Unit]

After an inordinate amount of time, direction, re-direction and encouragement, distinct from whistle-stop tours of all other places.

A refresher-reading of the example Alfred found is needed, I think ....

Unlike some, i don't cherry-pick which alerts I see as interesting. Eddie alerted correctly at the car and behind the sofa. How peculiar that his other alerts are so vehemently attacked.