Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Carew]

The uncontrollable "unconscious alerts"  were apparently not enough to elicit responses in many areas of the apartment..............

How was that achieved?

[OxfordBloo]

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 ?

What scientific research does show is that although dog alerts are useful, they are not reliable or accurate and are open to several types of error including unconscious handler bias.

[OxfordBloo]

The uncontrollable "unconscious alerts"  were apparently not enough to elicit responses in many areas of the apartment..............

How was that achieved?

The dogs relate to unconscious 'tells'. Those tells are not continuous but increase when the handler is cued. For instance Eddie could not have failed to understand that cuddle cat was of interest or the Renault was of interest because Grime's repeated call backs would have acted as a tell.

[Carew]

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.

I think we are aware of that.

"Scientific background" would need to be applied to the individual case and not used as generalisations in order to negate the alerts around all things McCann.

( Otherwise it could be viewed as Poster Bias.........conscious or unconscious.)

[G-Unit]

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.

Neither does piling up negative examples. Why can't people just accept that the alerts are indications? They are just as deserving of attention as witness sightings of strange men, open windows, locked or unlocked doors, the level of light around G5A, cigarette butts on a veranda, the GNR sniffer dog results, Sangresman, Cooperman, Smithman, and the Victoria Beckham woman.

[Carew]

The dogs relate to unconscious 'tells'. Those tells are not continuous but increase when the handler is cued. For instance Eddie could not have failed to understand that cuddle cat was of interest or the Renault was of interest because Grime's repeated call backs would have acted as a tell.
[/quote


Eddie was "encouraged" around the bathroom, with no alerts.........(no "tells" of any sort ?)

He could have also failed to alert to a boy`s t shirt on account of no expectation in terms of "tells"..........but alerted.........?

[OxfordBloo]

Neither does piling up negative examples. Why can't people just accept that the alerts are indications? They are just as deserving of attention as witness sightings of strange men, open windows, locked or unlocked doors, the level of light around G5A, cigarette butts on a veranda, the GNR sniffer dog results, Sangresman, Cooperman, Smithman, and the Victoria Beckham woman.

No. A single contrary finding negates the contention that the dogs are infallible.

We know the dogs are only partially accurate. The only question is how Inaccurate they are.

In the same way as the other indications you list, they have a limited reliability and cannot be probative.

Dogs don't lie, but they are open to many potential errors.

[Brietta]

Neither does piling up negative examples. Why can't people just accept that the alerts are indications? They are just as deserving of attention as witness sightings of strange men, open windows, locked or unlocked doors, the level of light around G5A, cigarette butts on a veranda, the GNR sniffer dog results, Sangresman, Cooperman, Smithman, and the Victoria Beckham woman.

They were treated as indications and the areas indicated thoroughly checked ... in the case of the door of the Renault the substance alerted to was material from Dr G McCann ... in the boot Keela's alert to blood was verified.

Personally I do not rate Eddie's video performance ... it was not his trained response to pick up evidence in his mouth and toss it around, and he is on video lifting food debris (chicken leg or kebab) from the waste in one of the apartments. 
My opinion only, but it would have been interesting to see what the defence in a trial would have made of it.

[Anna]

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.

There was no body ever found in this case either IIRC, or has she been found since?
 
A link to the video and story in 2012 of this case and Grime in court:-

http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/prosecutors-say-dogs-detection-of-human-decomposition-points-to-murder-of-bianca-jones

[G-Unit]

No. A single contrary finding negates the contention that the dogs are infallible.

We know the dogs are only partially accurate. The only question is how Inaccurate they are.

In the same way as the other indications you list, they have a limited reliability and cannot be probative.

Dogs don't lie, but they are open to many potential errors.

As far as I know no-one has said that the dogs are infallible. Thank you for acknowledging that the alerts are indications.

[pathfinder73]

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

Maybe you want to know more about the case then.

[OxfordBloo]

As far as I know no-one has said that the dogs are infallible. Thank you for acknowledging that the alerts are indications.

My ears still ring from the cries of "Dogs don't lie!"

I am pleased that you are now aware that dogs are fallible and do make alerts which are false, whether positive or negative. They can react where there is no scent and fail to react where there is.

[slartibartfast]

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

Beat me to it.

[G-Unit]

My ears still ring from the cries of "Dogs don't lie!"

I am pleased that you are now aware that dogs are fallible and do make alerts which are false, whether positive or negative. They can react where there is no scent and fail to react where there is.

Who said that? I never have. I haven't looked in any depth at the competing evidence on dogs. I have observed that they are seen as a useful tool by all sorts of agencies for all sorts of purposes. I know that Keela was right, I don't know whether Eddie was right or not when he alerted where Keela didn't. His alerts should not be dismissed as wrong, however. They should be borne in mind.

[OxfordBloo]

Who said that? I never have. I haven't looked in any depth at the competing evidence on dogs. I have observed that they are seen as a useful tool by all sorts of agencies for all sorts of purposes. I know that Keela was right, I don't know whether Eddie was right or not when he alerted where Keela didn't. His alerts should not be dismissed as wrong, however. They should be borne in mind.

How can you even start to 'know' whether Eddie or Keela were 'right'.

You do realise I hope that a reaction from Eddie alone can signify blood without cadaver odour?.