Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[ferryman]

It would help if you used the quote function.

Why?

[mercury]

When I quote something I either put it in bold or italics, to indicate that it is a quote.

I'm not remotely concerned about how others receive that ....

No, newspaper articles or whole liturgies are not "quotes"
Quotes are sentences uttered by people, bold is supposed to emphasise somethng, there's a difference

You might not be concerned but many are...no one else here does it either!! To be fair you might not have realised this, but it is not net etiquette, it's similar to posting in capitals, IE shouting, it's not required

[ferryman]

No, newspaper articles or whole liturgies are not "quotes"
Quotes are sentences uttered by people, bold is supposed to emphasise somethng, there's a difference

You might not be concerned but many are...no one else here does it either!! To be fair you might not have realised this, but it is not net etiquette, it's similar to posting in capitals, IE shouting, it's not required

So did the (late) Eddie react to pseudo-scents?

Or didn't he?

[mercury]

So did the (late) Eddie react to pseudo-scents?

Or didn't he?

You can't get away with that dear FM...you have to play fair and discuss and answer old questions or say yu cannot answer them and explain why before you move on as it pleases you, it really does NOT work like this

[slartibartfast]

Why?

So the reader can distinguish between your words and those from other sources.

[ferryman]

So the reader can distinguish between your words and those from other sources.

Click on to the link and the link tells you.

[ferryman]

You can't get away with that dear FM...you have to play fair and discuss and answer old questions or say yu cannot answer them and explain why before you move on as it pleases you, it really does NOT work like this

What questions?

[mercury]

What questions?

The ones I asked you on this thread but you bypassed...never mind, others can see

As for your excuse for typing in bold then saying you can see the difference between what is quoted and your words in the link, err yes, exactly, if there is a link, you don't need the bold!! Do you?
But carry on if it makes you happy
You can also make it different colours and bigger fonts if you want to play and try and make it seem more important

[slartibartfast]

Click on to the link and the link tells you.

See...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg277436#msg277436

[Brietta]

When I quote something I either put it in bold or italics, to indicate that it is a quote.

I'm not remotely concerned about how others receive that ....

I'm not quite sure that it has quite been grasped that although very good at helping locate places where evidence or missing people may be found ... they are not infallible.

A woman in America was missing for four weeks, her house was searched several times, sniffer dogs were employed without success.
Then her husband noticed a foot sticking out from a pile of rubbish ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7971115/Serial-hoarder-found-buried-under-piles-of-rubbish-at-home-after-four-months.html

The dogs may have faced "tremendous environmental challenges" because of the state of the house, but they were trained to find dead people and they singularly failed to do so in this instance.

[slartibartfast]

I'm not quite sure that it has quite been grasped that although very good at helping locate places where evidence or missing people may be found ... they are not infallible.

A woman in America was missing for four weeks, her house was searched several times, sniffer dogs were employed without success.
Then her husband noticed a foot sticking out from a pile of rubbish ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7971115/Serial-hoarder-found-buried-under-piles-of-rubbish-at-home-after-four-months.html

The dogs may have faced "tremendous environmental challenges" because of the state of the house, but they were trained to find dead people and they singularly failed to do so in this instance.

What were the dogs trained in?

[ferryman]

See...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg277436#msg277436

The board has 3 facilities for quotes: what you've used, italics or bold.

I tend to prefer bold.

[ferryman]

I'm not quite sure that it has quite been grasped that although very good at helping locate places where evidence or missing people may be found ... they are not infallible.

A woman in America was missing for four weeks, her house was searched several times, sniffer dogs were employed without success.
Then her husband noticed a foot sticking out from a pile of rubbish ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7971115/Serial-hoarder-found-buried-under-piles-of-rubbish-at-home-after-four-months.html

The dogs may have faced "tremendous environmental challenges" because of the state of the house, but they were trained to find dead people and they singularly failed to do so in this instance.

Interesting.  One of the few things of note I picked up from Heidei Ho's dreadful videos was that dogs are good at differentiating/distinguishing between and separating out discrete scents in an environment and focusing, alone, on the scent they are trained to find (much better than humans).

I'm sure that's true and in fact I recall seeing a video of a man who murdered and buried his wife in a whole quite deep dug by a mechanical digger.  Then, on top of her body, he piled a load of meat, intended to distract the dog.  But the dogs weren't distracted by the meat and detected the cadaver scent of the dead woman.

[Brietta]

What were the dogs trained in?

Did you bother to follow the link?

My posting style like Ferryman's has also been subject to some criticism from many of the same critics ... so I have amended it to suit and have not included huge chunks of the article I am using to illustrate my point ... just my own précis and the link.
It hasn't worked because you failed to pick up "sniffer dogs" which when looking for a missing person probably translates as Victim Recovery Dog.

You are a Mod now ... don't you think it may be a bit inappropriate to 'pick' at particular posters on a partisan basis particularly when it concerns transparent trivia?  I have already complained to you about feeling 'stalked', I'm less than happy for you to take up from where you left off.


Sniffer dogs who were used to locate bodies at the site of Ground Zero in New York after the 9/11 terror attack were also sent into the single storey property.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307228/Husband-hoarder-discovers-body-piles-rubbish-messy-house-shared--months-went-missing.html#ixzz3nRyAcMSZ

[Brietta]

Interesting.  One of the few things of note I picked up from Heidei Ho's dreadful videos was that dogs are good at differentiating/distinguishing between and separating out discrete scents in an environment and focusing, alone, on the scent they are trained to find (much better than humans).

I'm sure that's true and in fact I recall seeing a video of a man who murdered and buried his wife in a whole quite deep dug by a mechanical digger.  Then, on top of her body, he piled a load of meat, intended to distract the dog.  But the dogs weren't distracted by the meat and detected the cadaver scent of the dead woman.

From what I have read, and it is quite extensive now ... these dogs are invaluable assets in whatever field their training covers.  But they are not infallible, they make mistakes, the handler misinterprets, the dog 'reads' the mind of the handler ... the proof of the pudding is in the eating, if they signal the signal must be confirmed.
If they don't signal and there is a body present ... they are just plain wrong.