Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Jean-Pierre]

Eddie finds the source of the strongest scent. He goes in first to find cadaver scent. Keela has to get in real close with her nose to detect any microscopic blood in those alerted areas. We have Grime's opinion about Eddie's alerts - they all were for cadaver not blood and he  knows more about his dog, behaviour and training than any of us.

What forensic evidence was found?  Because without corroborating evidence alerts are totally meaningless.

[pathfinder73]

Are they your opinions or do you have a cite?

The evidence is on video. Eddie found the scent and was chasing it with his head in the air past the car. Was he barking? No he wasn't until he found the source of the scent emitting from the door seal and then he gave his positive bark alert. Keela gets in real close to locate any blood. The EVRD alert indications suggest cadaver is Grime's professional opinion in his report.

[misty]

The evidence is on video. Eddie found the scent and was chasing it with his head in the air past the car. Was he barking? No he wasn't until he found the source of the scent emitting from the door seal and then he gave his positive bark alert. Keela gets in real close to locate any blood. The EVRD alert indications suggest cadaver is Grime's professional opinion in his report.

Why do you suppose Eddie didn't indicate the deposits in the r/o/s boot of the Scenic? If you take the key out of the equation, Keela wouldn't have gone inside the car. Did Eddie miss deposits in any of the other vehicles?

[pathfinder73]

[G-Unit]

He wouldn't necessarily 'know'. Cueing can be quite unconscious. If he knew the suspects' car of apartment be might be more likely to exhibit unconscious tells when in those places

He didn't need the dogs then he could do it on his own lol. He cued them behind the couch; blood behind the couch. He cued the car; blood in the car. That's  believable. Another professional being doubted because of this case.

[OxfordBloo]

He didn't need the dogs then he could do it on his own lol. He cued them behind the couch; blood behind the couch. He cued the car; blood in the car. That's  believable. Another professional being doubted because of this case.

Unconscious cueing is a scientific fact.

Get over it.

[G-Unit]

Unconscious cueing is a scientific fact.

Get over it.

You are still accusing a professional policeman and dog trainer of not doing his job properly. You have no evidence for the accusation. I wonder why you're so keen to discredit him?

[ferryman]

What forensic evidence was found?  Because without corroborating evidence alerts are totally meaningless.

Occasionally, corroborating evidence renders dog-alerts meaningless.

Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car ...

Why did Grime wear the protective overalls of his trade for only one inspection, the inspection of the vehicles, the video of which he was handed possession of, so he could later use it to promote himself when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?

[OxfordBloo]

You are still accusing a professional policeman and dog trainer of not doing his job properly. You have no evidence for the accusation. I wonder why you're so keen to discredit him?

I have every right to suggest that he might be open to human foibles proved by science.

And he called Eddie back to the McCann's car seven times and the other twice and then claimed that he did not know which was the McCann's car at the time despite it being the only one plastered with posters.

And his random approach to which dogs be used where.

Among many other alarm bells in his speech and behaviour.

[G-Unit]

Occasionally, corroborating evidence renders dog-alerts meaningless.

Gerry's blood on the ignition key of the car ...

Why did Grime wear the protective overalls of his trade for only one inspection, the inspection of the vehicles, the video of which he was handed possession of, so he could later use it to promote himself when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne?

Meaningless? The dogs alerted to the key. There was blood on the key. How is that meaningless? The dogs did what was required of them. It added nothing evidential to the case, but that's another matter.

[OxfordBloo]

Meaningless? The dogs alerted to the key. There was blood on the key. How is that meaningless? The dogs did what was required of them. It added nothing evidential to the case, but that's another matter.

Of course dogs are right some of the time. Best estimate is about 80% in vivo.

The problem is that dogs are also fallible and we have no way of telling accurate from inaccurate when here is no confirming forensics.

[Brietta]

Meaningless? The dogs alerted to the key. There was blood on the key. How is that meaningless? The dogs did what was required of them. It added nothing evidential to the case, but that's another matter.

Just as they added nothing evidential to the case of Haut de la Garenne ~ but taken in conjunction with Praia da Luz may be considered to have brought disrepute on the investigation by the way in which their role was publicised and promoted.

[Brietta]

You are still accusing a professional policeman and dog trainer of not doing his job properly. You have no evidence for the accusation. I wonder why you're so keen to discredit him?

The dogs provided absolutely no evidence which could be used in a court of law ~ kangaroo courts don't count ~ in what way is stating that discrediting the handler?

[G-Unit]

Of course dogs are right some of the time. Best estimate is about 80% in vivo.

The problem is that dogs are also fallible and we have no way of telling accurate from inaccurate when here is no confirming forensics.

The fallibility of the dogs isn't a problem for me. Two dogs trained and handled by the same person. One dog did it's job and found forensic evidence. The assumption that the other dog was wrong is just an assumption, nothing else.

[slartibartfast]

The dogs provided absolutely no evidence which could be used in a court of law ~ kangaroo courts don't count ~ in what way is stating that discrediting the handler?

That's the problem, this is a discussion forum, the supporters seem to think it is a trial and resort to arguments that are only really applicable in a court of law. That doesn't really contribute to enlightenment just stifle the debate.