Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[OxfordBloo]

.............and off we go with another thread appearing to be for the sole purpose..........yet again..........of traducing a dog handler.

Was any official censure ever forthcoming as a result of the "appalling exercise?"

Politics is no answer to Science.

The Clever Hans and Black Swan effects say more than opinions.

[G-Unit]

I agree as well.

Why was Eddie only tasked to check places directly related to the erstwhile arguidos (with only a quick sniff around the accommodation of the T7) as opposed to a broader sniff of other places of potential interest?

Maybe you should read the PJ Files more closely?

Five apartments at a complex in Praia Da Luz.
Mr. Murat's property at Pria Da Luz.
Mr. McCann's Villa at Pria Da Luz ( Present occupancy).
Articles of clothing from Mr. McCann's residence.
Western beach Pria da Luz.
Eastern Beach Pria Da Luz.
10 Vehicles screened at Portimao.
CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Carew]

Politics is no answer to Science.

The Clever Hans and Black Swan effects say more than opinions.

Dress it up in all the pseudo-impressive- authoritative- scientific terms you like.............that`s what the ultimate aim seems to be.

 

[Mr Gray]

Dress it up in all the pseudo-impressive- authoritative- scientific terms you like.............that`s what the ultimate aim seems to be.

the dog's alerts are not science...that's the whole point you are missing.

[OxfordBloo]

Dress it up in all the pseudo-impressive- authoritative- scientific terms you like.............that`s what the ultimate aim seems to be.

"Don't you confuse my myth with your scientific facts."

If you bother to look at the Academic (Authoritative) texts you will find that both effects are factual, well researched and scientifically accurate.

"What do you all someone who denies the utility of science? Ill educated."

[Alfred R Jones]

People who are trying to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of some offence against Madeleine need to claim that the dogs' reactions are probative evidence that a body was present in the apartment, and had contact with the clothes and the back of the car. They have misunderstood that most of the alerts were explainable by reaction to trace amounts of blood that could have come from any source, living or cadaver. This is because both Eddie and Keela alert to dried blood as per their training. Two results do suggest the possibility (not certainty) of cadaver odour- the cupboard and some clothes. An indication of cadaver odour requires a positive from Eddie and a negative from Keela.

Scent dogs are not 100% accurate. Even in this case there were reactions with no residue found which were either true reactions to minimal amounts or false alerts; se cannot know which.

Animal psychology studies show that animals are open to cueing- the Clever Hans effect. One study that used no target scent managed to get handlers to claim positive alerts only from those patches that they themselves believed to be contaminated even though all were clean

In summary to this point, dogs are a very useful indication of evidence but do not have any probative value as the law believes the science that the dogs are not infallible, in that they do make false positive and false negative alerts.

So what do people do who want to support their views that the McCanns are guilty. Well, they list case after case which hits the news where dogs were useful. No one has denied that the dogs were useful, but no one can show that the dogs are infallible.

So we have a scientific situation where Group A say "Scent Dogs are known to make errors even though they may be useful in finding evidence but they are not probative." and Group B say " But dogs have proved to be useful in all these cases. Group A say that that is very interesting, but producing further examples of utility is not helpful because it ignores failure to report the times that dogs are proved in error or uncertain.

It is called the Black Swan effect because before 1700 an example used in logic of a true statement was that 'all swans are white'. For centuries this was held to be the truth as every year more and more white swans were noted by ornithologists and logicians. Then Australia was discovered along with its black swans. One black swan added more information than a million more white swans could not.

This is the problem of 'induction'- it ignores possible future exceptions and any past ones that were not recorded.

In scientific terms it means that

If one is saying 'X is Y' is true
Arguing that every X observed has always been Y
Adding further examples of X being Y does not add to the truth of the statement.
But one example of X being not Y overturns the contention.

So listing newspaper items about successful scent dogs does not affect the truth value of "All dogs are infallible" but one case of fallibility means that what is true is that "Scent dogs are NOT infallible."

Because scent dogs including Eddie and Keela have reacted when there is no evidence found, then by logic (not belief) 'Some scent dogs are fallible' which means that "Scent dogs are not infallible."

You gotta admit - it's hard to argue with that! 

[Carew]

the dog's alerts are not science...that's the whole point you are missing.

Aiming to convey and promote an impression that Eddie, given enough time and/or cuing from his handler............would probably have alerted anywhere and everywhere and not just in and around Areas McCann is the "point" and it hasn`t been missed.

We`ve been here before ; many times and the agenda is always the same.

That`s my "point."

[Alfred R Jones]

Aiming to convey and promote an impression that Eddie, given enough time and/or cuing from his handler............would probably have alerted anywhere and everywhere and not just in and around Areas McCann is the "point" and it hasn`t been missed.

We`ve been here before ; many times and the agenda is always the same.

That`s my "point."

Is it your belief that Eddie was infallible, and completely impervious to unconscious handler bias?  If so, what is the basis for your belief?

[Alice Purjorick]

People who are trying to suggest that the McCanns were guilty of some offence against Madeleine need to claim that the dogs' reactions are probative evidence that a body was present in the apartment, and had contact with the clothes and the back of the car. They have misunderstood that most of the alerts were explainable by reaction to trace amounts of blood that could have come from any source, living or cadaver. This is because both Eddie and Keela alert to dried blood as per their training. Two results do suggest the possibility (not certainty) of cadaver odour- the cupboard and some clothes. An indication of cadaver odour requires a positive from Eddie and a negative from Keela.

Scent dogs are not 100% accurate. Even in this case there were reactions with no residue found which were either true reactions to minimal amounts or false alerts; se cannot know which.

Animal psychology studies show that animals are open to cueing- the Clever Hans effect. One study that used no target scent managed to get handlers to claim positive alerts only from those patches that they themselves believed to be contaminated even though all were clean

In summary to this point, dogs are a very useful indication of evidence but do not have any probative value as the law believes the science that the dogs are not infallible, in that they do make false positive and false negative alerts.

So what do people do who want to support their views that the McCanns are guilty. Well, they list case after case which hits the news where dogs were useful. No one has denied that the dogs were useful, but no one can show that the dogs are infallible.

So we have a scientific situation where Group A say "Scent Dogs are known to make errors even though they may be useful in finding evidence but they are not probative." and Group B say " But dogs have proved to be useful in all these cases. Group A say that that is very interesting, but producing further examples of utility is not helpful because it ignores failure to report the times that dogs are proved in error or uncertain.

It is called the Black Swan effect because before 1700 an example used in logic of a true statement was that 'all swans are white'. For centuries this was held to be the truth as every year more and more white swans were noted by ornithologists and logicians. Then Australia was discovered along with its black swans. One black swan added more information than a million more white swans could not.

This is the problem of 'induction'- it ignores possible future exceptions and any past ones that were not recorded.

In scientific terms it means that

If one is saying 'X is Y' is true
Arguing that every X observed has always been Y
Adding further examples of X being Y does not add to the truth of the statement.
But one example of X being not Y overturns the contention.

So listing newspaper items about successful scent dogs does not affect the truth value of "All dogs are infallible" but one case of fallibility means that what is true is that "Scent dogs are NOT infallible."

Because scent dogs including Eddie and Keela have reacted when there is no evidence found, then by logic (not belief) 'Some scent dogs are fallible' which means that "Scent dogs are not infallible."

Where I come from me duck we call this "bullshit baffles brains".

[Mr Gray]

Aiming to convey and promote an impression that Eddie, given enough time and/or cuing from his handler............would probably have alerted anywhere and everywhere and not just in and around Areas McCann is the "point" and it hasn`t been missed.

We`ve been here before ; many times and the agenda is always the same.

That`s my "point."

my point is that is exactly what happened...Grime was looking for evidence...real evidence...so it was important that having brought the dogs at great expense nothing should be missed...taht's why he brought the dog's back again and again..to make sure nothing was missed.

Nothing was missed and the dog's found nothing

[Alfred R Jones]

Where I come from me duck we call this "bullshit baffles brains".

Alice, why are you baffled by what Oxford has carefully and logically explained to you?  I thought you were supposed to be reasonably  intelligent..? &%+((£

[OxfordBloo]

Where I come from me duck we call this "bullshit baffles brains".

Where I come from its called well thought out argument based on well researched concepts readily accepted by all experts in the fields of animal behaviour, human behaviour and Logic. You can check all the references by Googling.

Where I come from your response is called wilful ignorance caused by failure to accept scientific fact.

It is basically an appeal "Don't attack my ignorance with facts."

[Carew]

Is it your belief that Eddie was infallible, and completely impervious to unconscious handler bias?  If so, what is the basis for your belief?

Is it your belief that Eddie was subject to unconscious handler bias towards alerting to "Areas McCann?"

That seems to be the purpose of the thread.

[OxfordBloo]

Is it your belief that Eddie was subject to unconscious handler bias towards alerting to "Areas McCann?"

That seems to be the purpose of the thread.

It would be surprising if Eddie were not susceptible to handler unconscious bias.

[pathfinder73]

Is it your belief that Eddie was infallible, and completely impervious to unconscious handler bias?  If so, what is the basis for your belief?

'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.