Madeleine McCann. Sniffer dogs brought in to help with scrubland dig.

[pathfinder73]

He does not signal when he sniffs base of sideboard door.
That says clearly to me: there is absolutely nothing inside the sideboard with the relevant odour on it.
It's exactly like the bark near wardrobe, which I think we agree on, last place sniffed ...?

Eddie went in there the first time and didn't alert. The second time he did. Do you know what was the only difference? CC was there hidden in the cupboard the second time.

[pegasus]

Eddie passed by CC three or four times and did not show any interest at all.   I cannot think of any other interpretation except that no cadaverscent was present on Cuddlecat.   What other interpretation can possibly be made?

I agree, an absolutely common-sense filled post.

 

[pegasus]

Eddie went in there the first time and didn't alert. The second time he did. Do you know what was the only difference? CC was there hidden in the cupboard the second time.

IIRC he sniffs at the base of the sideboard door while the cat is in there and does not signal, but I would need to watch it again to confirm.

[Benice]

Eddie went in there the first time and didn't alert. The second time he did. Do you know what was the only difference? CC was there hidden in the cupboard the second time.

But what does that prove Pathfinder?  Eddie either recognises a scent he has been trained to alert to and barks or if there is no scent which he recognises he doesn't bark.     He didn't bark even though his nose passed closely by CC several times before it was taken away.   Why do you think that happened?

[pathfinder73]

I've explained that he marked CC by taking it out of the bin. A second test was done and he alerted.

[pegasus]

I've explained that he marked CC by taking it out of the bin. A second test was done and he alerted.

He signals a fraction of a second after sniffing the exact correct location/object.

[Benice]

I've explained that he marked CC by taking it out of the bin. A second test was done and he alerted.

Sorry but that is simply not true.   The only response Eddie was trained to make on recognising a certain scent was to bark.   Just as the only response Keela was trained to do - was to freeze.   There are no other alternatives according to Martin Grime.

[pathfinder73]

I've explained he didn't bark but dug on another occasion and found a body.

[Miss Taken Identity]

I know what you are saying Pathfinder. I understand, and accept what you say.

On this occasion the dog just didn't find a body; and the scent he did find, could not be contributed to any specific person-that is my reason for thinking it wouldn't be admissible as evidence-circumstantial along with physical yes , certainly.

Also, it could as has happened, opened up an other line of inquiry.

*slip off topic for two seconds*

I love the wee dogs  they are fantastic- some are now being trained to smell cancer and other illnesses in hospitals and clinics.

[Mr Gray]

I know what you are saying Pathfinder. I understand, and accept what you say.

On this occasion the dog just didn't find a body; and the scent he did find, could not be contributed to any specific person-that is my reason for thinking it wouldn't be admissible as evidence-circumstantial along with physical yes , certainly.

Also, it could as has happened, opened up an other line of inquiry.

*slip off topic for two seconds*

I love the wee dogs  they are fantastic- some are now being trained to smell cancer and other illnesses in hospitals and clinics.

that's what grime said seven years ago......not really on the ball are you

[slartibartfast]

that's what grime said seven years ago......not really on the ball are you

Yes, it is only circumstantial that only one person was missing.

[Miss Taken Identity]

"quote"  Yes, it is only circumstantial that only one person was missing."unquote"

Ooops I didn't mean for it to read like that. I was meaning; it is only circumstantial evidence that the scent was Maddies and she  died in the apartment.  That is why it is still a Thesis, and the case was shelved.

Plenty of evidence she is missing:)

[Mr Gray]

"quote"  Yes, it is only circumstantial that only one person was missing."unquote"

Ooops I didn't mean for it to read like that. I was meaning; it is only circumstantial evidence that the scent was Maddies and she  died in the apartment.  That is why it is still a Thesis, and the case was shelved.

Plenty of evidence she is missing:)

according to grime it is not circumstantial evidence,,,the alert has no evidential reliability,,,grime is the expert

[slartibartfast]

according to grime it is not circumstantial evidence,,,the alert has no evidential reliability,,,grime is the expert

The circumstantial evidence is nothing to do with Grime. The circumstantial evidence is that Maddie was missing and the dog alerted.

[pegasus]

They got Prout and others on dog alerts and the lie detector. Let's ask the tapas 9 to take a lie detector if they say they're innocent. They wouldn't do it but at least everyone in the world would know they refused to do it. For a lie detector you have tell the truth to pass so no chance of that happening 

Presumably you have read about lie-detectors in order to reach your informed opinion that they are reliable? Which studies did you read? Can you recommend a good scientific paper on the subject ?