Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[mercury]

You mean the guy who thinks that if you want to search, say, a garden with a cadaver dog you first screen another garden to make sure there's no alerts. Then you pick up the garden you want to search and take it to the 'clean' garden. If the dog alerts, you then know the dog is actually alerting to the second garden, not the first one. If that sounds mad it's because it is. 

Oh dear, LOL, yes, the man who talks bananas, even when shown the evidence that he is doing so, remains in denial and thinks black is white and also maintains you have to believe black is white

I wouldn't waste your precious time GU

[ferryman]

Explain the collagen?

There was none.

[pathfinder73]

There was none.

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

28th March Ms Brock email to Forensic Manager Vicky Coupland

Collagen is not found in coconut or wood, it is only present in mammals, which would seem to destroy the claims of the Jersey establishment, aided and abetted by the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television, that JAR/6 is coconut or wood.

I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth.html

[ferryman]

“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”

28th March Ms Brock email to Forensic Manager Vicky Coupland

Collagen is not found in coconut or wood, it is only present in mammals, which would seem to destroy the claims of the Jersey establishment, aided and abetted by the Jersey Evening Post and Channel Television, that JAR/6 is coconut or wood.

I am a great admirer of the dogs and their handler. They worked long and hard hours. We carried out frequent tests on them and they succeeded every time. One such test was when one of the Anthropologists brought some sand which had been in contact with a mummy in another country. It was put on the beach and the dog went to it.

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth.html

Despite our concerns, X requested that a fuller
chemical treatment be undertaken, in an attempt to produce a
result, but although some material was extracted it was demonstrably
not collagenous based on the analysis of the texture of the material,
the C:N atomic ratios and the similarly significant lack of nitrogen, so
the sample was formally failed and the States of Jersey Police notified.
5.6.21 A further analysis of the bone sample later the following week by
X and X (British Museum faunal specialist
and one of our collaborators in work undertaken in the ORAU)
concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost
certainly wood. It seemed surprising to us that the material could be
so confidently identified by X , and particularly that it could
be determined to be an infant specimen. We informed X of
our concerns shortly afterwards, by phone and e-mail. We stand by our
original assessment. We suggest that the curvature of the material
may have had something to do with the misidentification. We
think it appears to be more like part of a large seed casing, or part of
something like a small piece of coconut. Certainly, the density of the
material is most unlike bone, it is too light. Our conclusion is that this
sample is: a) not bone and b) not human. We are very surprised that
the forensic archaeologist could be so confident and differ in X
identification. We suggested at the time that a further opinion would be
required, but this not considered by X . A further
analysis of the bone structure under a suitable microscope would
confirm the situation rapidly.
5.6.22 If this sample is bone and close to modern in age, then it would be
unusual in our experience for it to be so poorly preserved and lacking
in collagen. One would expect normally that for a bone coming from
the last few decades that at least some collagen would survive. In the
absence of collagen, one would conclude that the bone is probably
older than this, possibly by several hundred or even several thousands
of years. In this light, it is not liable to be of forensic interest. Our
assessment is, however, that it is almost certainly not bone and it is for
this reason that we have significant doubts over its forensic
importance. This probably explains the problems we encountered with
the sample and the fact that it is not able to be dated using collagen
extraction techniques.

There seems to be not much doubt that Eddie alerted to a coconut or a piece of wood.

The kindest explanation of why so far offered is mine.

[pathfinder73]

There seems to be not much doubt that Eddie alerted to a coconut or a piece of wood.

The kindest explanation of why so far offered is mine.

Eddie's record speaks for itself and so does Jersey's children's home with underground torture chambers so there's only one winner.

[ferryman]

Eddie's record speaks for itself and so does Jersey's children's home with underground torture chambers so there's only one winner.

Cuddle-cat.

Clothes not alerted to in the villa, but (the same clothes!) alerted to in the gym

And (Jersey) an alert to a piece of coconut.

I agree.

Eddie's record (as far as we know it) speaks for itself .....

[pathfinder73]

Cuddle-cat.

Clothes not alerted to in the villa, but (the same clothes!) alerted to in the gym

And (Jersey) an alert to a piece of coconut.

I agree.

Eddie's record (as far as we know it) speaks for itself .....

If this case is proved you will find out how great they were.

[mercury]

Eddie's record speaks for itself and so does Jersey's children's home with underground torture chambers so there's only one winner.

There were NO cellars said the jersey media and jersey politicians even WHEN they were PERSONALLY taken around and shown!

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist or believer in cover ups day in day out but  the case did stink very very much, in fact it reeked from top to bottom, and it seems karma has not left them alone just yet, which is a good thng

[ferryman]

If this case is proved you will find out how great they were.

The libel case against Amaral you mean?

If the McCanns' victory in the libel case is confirmed, what will that say (either way) about the dogs?

[Mr Gray]

Unless you can show proof that Eddie alerted specifically to a piece of coconut, or to the fragment which was said to be coconut you don't know what he alerted to. The mistake was human, not animal.

this is why the alerts are meaningless without corroboration.....even when it seems the alerts were wrong its possible to make excuses.

[G-Unit]

this is why the alerts are meaningless without corroboration.....even when it seems the alerts were wrong its possible to make excuses.

Until someone can prove an alert was wrong it remains a possibility that the alert was right. Those wishing to destroy Grime and Eddie only have to find one proven false alert, but they haven't managed it so far.

[Mr Gray]

Until someone can prove an alert was wrong it remains a possibility that the alert was right. Those wishing to destroy Grime and Eddie only have to find one proven false alert, but they haven't managed it so far.

it is impossible to prove a false alert....not because eddie hasn't made one...it simply is impossible so your logic is flawed...its a chocolate teapot argument

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course not. You give me proof that he made a mistake and I'll accept it. By that I mean proof, not newspaper gossip, not articles about other dogs, not opinions;  proof. Give me a direct quote from an observer or a picture of Eddie sniffing at a piece of coconut and then barking and I'll accept it (not photoshopped either lol).

you don't want much do you?!  Shame your requirement for proof that the McCanns are involved in something underhand is not quite so onerous.

[Mr Gray]

If this case is proved you will find out how great they were.

as the case is at present not proved...the alerts remain not so great

[ferryman]

Until someone can prove an alert was wrong it remains a possibility that the alert was right. Those wishing to destroy Grime and Eddie only have to find one proven false alert, but they haven't managed it so far.

You need to define carefully what's wrong and right.

For purposes of a criminal enquiry, you want a dog to react when there is incriminating evidence to find; and not to react when there is no incriminating evidence to find.

Irrespective of the reasons, anything outside those parameters is wrong.