Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[OxfordBloo]

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.

That is not science. It is a claim by a handler.

Science says that some handler bias id almost certain.

He also puts two different concepts together in a possibly unconscious attempt to mask the fallibility of the dogs.

He states that False Positives are possible and then immediately says that Eddie has never alerted to FOODSTUFFS. He does not address possible false alerts to sources other than foodstuffs.

[Alfred R Jones]

'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.

Hmm.., hardly an impartial source is it, the dog's own handler's assessment of his and his creature's abilities... got anything a little more objective?

[Mr Moderator]

I have removed the personal comments posted on this thread by Stephen and OxfordBloo.

Every member is entitled to post here as long as their posts are on topic, respectful and adhere to the forum rules. We are not concerned with what goes on in other forums as long as it does not spill over here.  Should that happen however we will always act in the best interests of the forum and the majority of its members.

In line with policy, please report any posts which breach our rules.

MM

[Miss Taken Identity]

Is it in the handlers interest to 'cheat' with results? if he kept giving false reports it would show up. and he would lose all credibility.

I do not believe he was trying to pin evidence on the parents at all. The dogs gave alerts, it was enough to surely give cause to be further investigated.

 Afterall lets say the alerts were accurate. It could have been that Maddie was killed by an intruder(deliberately or accidentally),they heard footsteps approaching and hid  Maddie in the cupboard- waited until the coast was clear then make a run for it...

[Brietta]

That is not science. It is a claim by a handler.

Science says that some handler bias id almost certain.

He also puts two different concepts together in a possibly unconscious attempt to mask the fallibility of the dogs.

He states that False Positives are possible and then immediately says that Eddie has never alerted to FOODSTUFFS. He does not address possible false alerts to sources other than foodstuffs.

1   Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes.
Lit L1, Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM.
Author information
Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate how human beliefs affect working dog outcomes in an applied environment.

We asked whether beliefs of scent detection dog handlers affect team performance and evaluated relative importance of human versus dog influences on handlers' beliefs.

Eighteen drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams each completed two sets of four brief search scenarios (conditions).

Handlers were falsely told that two conditions contained a paper marking scent location (human influence).

Two conditions contained decoy scents (food/toy) to encourage dog interest in a false location (dog influence).

Conditions were
(1) control;
(2) paper marker;
(3) decoy scent; and
(4) paper marker at decoy scent.

No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect.
A repeated measures analysis of variance was used with search condition as the independent variable and number of alerts as the dependent variable.

Additional nonparametric tests compared human and dog influence.

There were 225 incorrect responses, with no differences in mean responses across conditions.
Response patterns differed by condition.
There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers.

Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations.

Handlers' beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts.

Human more than dog influences affected alert locations.

This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225441

[pathfinder73]

That is not science. It is a claim by a handler.

Science says that some handler bias id almost certain.

He also puts two different concepts together in a possibly unconscious attempt to mask the fallibility of the dogs.

He states that False Positives are possible and then immediately says that Eddie has never alerted to FOODSTUFFS. He does not address possible false alerts to sources other than foodstuffs.

Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.

The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program.

[Brietta]

Is it in the handlers interest to 'cheat' with results? if he kept giving false reports it would show up. and he would lose all credibility.

I do not believe he was trying to pin evidence on the parents at all. The dogs gave alerts, it was enough to surely give cause to be further investigated.

 Afterall lets say the alerts were accurate. It could have been that Maddie was killed by an intruder(deliberately or accidentally),they heard footsteps approaching and hid  Maddie in the cupboard- waited until the coast was clear then make a run for it...

You fail to appreciate that the dogs are capable of picking up on imperceptible signals from the handler which the handler doesn't even know s/he is sending out.

Anyone with any experience of pet dogs knows how telepathic they appear to be.

So quoting 'clever Hans' and our new one ... 'black swan' in relation to dog searches ... is not an accusation against the handler ... it is just a fact corroborated by many independent studies.

[Brietta]

Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.

The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program.

I believe Morse was trained in the USA where it is legal to use body parts for training purposes. 

[G-Unit]

It would have been a very different story imo if the dogs had alerted thick and fast on Murat's property and his car. Those who accuse people of bias display their own bias all the time.

Dogs are used as tools in many different situations. They are obviously very useful tools or they wouldn't be used. Why would people go to such lengths to discredit two of these dogs unless it was to support their own agenda?

The dog's alerts did not lead to the recovery of enough evidence in this case to prove anything. You can argue about the dog's abilities as much as you like, but the alerts happened. No policeman worth his pay would then dismiss them completely and say 'Oh, dogs! Waste of time!'. He would treat the alerts as something which had to be noted, because taken with other evidence their alerts could become significant.

[Carew]

The handler would presumably then be "unconsciously cuing" those areas which produced an alert by Eddie?

It could be suggested that, if so,.........what "unconsciously" could have motivated the selection of those areas in and around the apartment which elicited a response?

Why not other areas?

Why not a stronger "unconscious cue" to the flower bed at which only a "weak response" was elicited?

"Scientific" research and observations do not entirely relate to the case in hand.

They can be used, however, to attempt to discredit by association,  can`t they ?

[OxfordBloo]

Is it in the handlers interest to 'cheat' with results? if he kept giving false reports it would show up. and he would lose all credibility.

I do not believe he was trying to pin evidence on the parents at all. The dogs gave alerts, it was enough to surely give cause to be further investigated.

 Afterall lets say the alerts were accurate. It could have been that Maddie was killed by an intruder(deliberately or accidentally),they heard footsteps approaching and hid  Maddie in the cupboard- waited until the coast was clear then make a run for it...

You are Mistaken (Haha)

The Clever Hans effect is entirely sub conscious. The handler does not even know that he or she is doing it. They have no control over it but unconsciously give out unconscious 'tells' that affect the behaviour of the dog. If the handler expects to find something, the dog is more likely to alert. Grime knew which apartment and which car belonged to the McCanns.

[OxfordBloo]

1   Handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes.
Lit L1, Schweitzer JB, Oberbauer AM.
Author information
Abstract

Our aim was to evaluate how human beliefs affect working dog outcomes in an applied environment.

We asked whether beliefs of scent detection dog handlers affect team performance and evaluated relative importance of human versus dog influences on handlers' beliefs.

Eighteen drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams each completed two sets of four brief search scenarios (conditions).

Handlers were falsely told that two conditions contained a paper marking scent location (human influence).

Two conditions contained decoy scents (food/toy) to encourage dog interest in a false location (dog influence).

Conditions were
(1) control;
(2) paper marker;
(3) decoy scent; and
(4) paper marker at decoy scent.

No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect.
A repeated measures analysis of variance was used with search condition as the independent variable and number of alerts as the dependent variable.

Additional nonparametric tests compared human and dog influence.

There were 225 incorrect responses, with no differences in mean responses across conditions.
Response patterns differed by condition.
There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers.

Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations.

Handlers' beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts.

Human more than dog influences affected alert locations.

This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225441

Thank you.

[OxfordBloo]

Why don't you ask the FBI about MG and his dogs. Would their word be good enough for you? SY are searching for evidence of a body because of Eddie's cadaver alerts and they're using cadaver dogs. They are on the right track.

The jury listened to testimony from Martin Grime, a dog handler who works for the FBI in their Forensic Canine Program.

That is exactly what I was saying about induction. Production of additional cases where dogs were successful does not affect the question, but the Scientific paper that Brietta has linked to above indicates that dogs are open to unconscious handler bias.

Piling up further positive examples does not advance the debate.

[Brietta]

It would have been a very different story imo if the dogs had alerted thick and fast on Murat's property and his car. Those who accuse people of bias display their own bias all the time.

Dogs are used as tools in many different situations. They are obviously very useful tools or they wouldn't be used. Why would people go to such lengths to discredit two of these dogs unless it was to support their own agenda?

The dog's alerts did not lead to the recovery of enough evidence in this case to prove anything. You can argue about the dog's abilities as much as you like, but the alerts happened. No policeman worth his pay would then dismiss them completely and say 'Oh, dogs! Waste of time!'. He would treat the alerts as something which had to be noted, because taken with other evidence their alerts could become significant.

Now you come to mention it, I believe one of Murat's cars was not inspected by the dogs because it was in the garage at the time.
However I would be of the opinion that exactly the same conditions would apply.  The dog 'alert' would be indicative and evidence to prove the alert would have to be found otherwise ... nada!

What I found interesting regarding the dog search of Jenny Murat's residence and the other residences searched is that over the years no workman or occupant had ever bled in it ... no one had cut themselves shaving ...

I think that is worth ruminating over.

[OxfordBloo]

It would have been a very different story imo if the dogs had alerted thick and fast on Murat's property and his car. Those who accuse people of bias display their own bias all the time.

Dogs are used as tools in many different situations. They are obviously very useful tools or they wouldn't be used. Why would people go to such lengths to discredit two of these dogs unless it was to support their own agenda?

The dog's alerts did not lead to the recovery of enough evidence in this case to prove anything. You can argue about the dog's abilities as much as you like, but the alerts happened. No policeman worth his pay would then dismiss them completely and say 'Oh, dogs! Waste of time!'. He would treat the alerts as something which had to be noted, because taken with other evidence their alerts could become significant.

No one is saying that dog alerts should be ignored. What we are saying is that dog alerts should be seen against the scientific background on their accuracy. Science suggests strongly that they will make errors of false positive and false negative type.

Dog alerts are useful indicators of evidence but at not probative evidence by themselves.