Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Alfred R Jones]

I find it enlightening that some people spend time trawling the internet for 'proof' on the 'notorious unreliability' of dogs used in various scenarios. why is it so important to discredit the usefulness of these dogs? I find that most significant.

So did you read the article or not?  It wasn't written or funded by disciples of the McCanns so interested to know your views on this objective piece of research.  Do you accept it or not?  If not, why not?

[OxfordBloo]

Irrelevant general dog statistics. I thought you were going to say that Eddie was EVRD and was highly skilled with special training techniques. Where forensics find nothing Eddie or Keela do!

'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.

She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles.

STU MACHINE

I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent
pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a Scent Transference
Unit. Operational use of the STU is in a developmental and evaluative stage
used in conjunction with selective FBI casework. The unis is in a two-part
design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in
at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air
within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A
sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the STU draws air
through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the
rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for
use within scent discrimination exercises.

The STU is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is
apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to
search a given area where the STU is secreted. Any response by the dog
would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination
procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device
when completed. Use of the STU is considered when subject vehicles,
property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from
contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best
practice would be for the dog to be given direct access.

Gerry: I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about (haha) cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable.

Sandra: Unreliable?

Gerry: Cadaver dogs, yes. That's what the evidence shows, if they are tested scientifically."

They want to highlight the judge's dismissal of cadaver dog evidence in the high-profile Eugene Zapata murder trial in Madison, Wisconsin.
The couple's lawyers have already contacted Zapata's defence team, who are now sending their large file on the matter to Britain.
Zapata's estranged wife, flight instructor Jeanette Zapata, was 37 when she vanished on October 11 1976 after seeing her three children off to school. Her body has never been found.
 

Generally meaningless verbiage.

All scent dogs are fallible to a certain extent.

[pathfinder73]

Generally meaningless verbiage.

All scent dogs are fallible to a certain extent.

You better go get your EVRD statistics then if you're posting crap about Eddie in this case.

[pathfinder73]

[G-Unit]

Because that is how forensic science works.

You start with an unknown and work towards facts.

Science shows that dogs do not indicate facts but possibilities of facts.



The important question is why some people are so desperate to say that the dogs produce facts rather than intelligence.

I may be mistaken. but I find your tone pretty condescending. Your final comment is wrong; Keela's alerts produced  facts.

[OxfordBloo]

I may be mistaken. but I find your tone pretty condescending. Your final comment is wrong; Keela's alerts produced  facts.

It is difficult to not appear condescending when faced with battalions of ignorance.

Keela's alerts did not produce facts. Facts were known when the forensic results were returned. Many places Keela alerted did not produce evidence.

Dogs indicate, forensics produce facts.

[OxfordBloo]

You better go get your EVRD statistics then if you're posting crap about Eddie in this case.

"EVRD dogs" re a creation of Grime's and a few others. There are no reliable statistics on their accuracy. The best estimate is that they are as accurate as any other scent dog - about 80%.

The "Enhanced" does not mean more a curate. VRD dogs are trained to find remains in open country, often after disasters. The so called "Enhanced" dogs are trained to detect trace amounts of decomposed bodies in buildings as well as in the open.

EVRD's are generally not scientifically verified by independent research.

[slartibartfast]

"EVRD dogs" re a creation of Grime's and a few others. There are no reliable statistics on their accuracy. The best estimate is that they are as accurate as any other scent dog - about 80%.

The "Enhanced" does not mean more a curate. VRD dogs are trained to find remains in open country, often after disasters. The so called "Enhanced" dogs are trained to detect trace amounts of decomposed bodies in buildings as well as in the open.

EVRD's are generally not scientifically verified by independent research.

All In Your not so Humble Opinion of course.

[OxfordBloo]

All In Your not so Humble Opinion of course.

Well if you think it is wrong:

Produce any independent scientific assessment of EVRDS.

Produce any clear definition of EVRDs apart from handler's claims.

Produce evidence of what 'enhanced' means other than words used by their trainers to indicate non rescue dogs..

Over to you.





 

[Eleanor]

All In Your not so Humble Opinion of course.

My opinions are never humble.  Are yours?

[G-Unit]

It is difficult to not appear condescending when faced with battalions of ignorance.

Keela's alerts did not produce facts. Facts were known when the forensic results were returned. Many places Keela alerted did not produce evidence.

Dogs indicate, forensics produce facts.

Well do try. Being condescending doesn't verify your arguments, it detracts from them as it's such a well known tactic. Wordplay is also counter-productive.

Keela alerted behind the couch and in the car.
Samples were taken from these places.
Analysis of these samples produced DNA.
DNA is a fact.
Without Keela's alerts the DNA wouldn't have been found, so the 'factual' forensic results wouldn't have been produced.
You can't exclude Keela's alerts from the process.
Please tell me where Keela alerted in vain?

[OxfordBloo]

Well do try. Being condescending doesn't verify your arguments, it detracts from them as it's such a well known tactic. Wordplay is also counter-productive.

Keela alerted behind the couch and in the car.
Samples were taken from these places.
Analysis of these samples produced DNA.
DNA is a fact.
Without Keela's alerts the DNA wouldn't have been found, so the 'factual' forensic results wouldn't have been produced.
You can't exclude Keela's alerts from the process.
Please tell me where Keela alerted in vain?

How I use English is up to me. I am not here to impress or make friends. I am here to defend truth and justice.

Read the files. Keela reacted in several places were no forensics were found.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well if you think it is wrong:

Produce any independent scientific assessment of EVRDS.

Produce any clear definition of EVRDs apart from handler's claims.

Produce evidence of what 'enhanced' means other than words used by their trainers to indicate non rescue dogs..

Over to you.

You seem to be doing "an Eric Von Daniken" there old stick.

[OxfordBloo]

You seem to be doing "an Eric Von Daniken" there old stick.

No. Exactly the opposite.

Von Denizen made outlandish claims about what is the case and demanded people disprove his theories.

It is not possible to do this

My contentions are negative

There are no known statistics on EVRDs

EVRD is largely undefined save by the handlers

Enhanced does not mean more accurate.

If those are incorrect it is easy to produce evidence to counter them-

Produce research, Produce definition of EVRD, Produce evidence of what enhanced actually means.

Von Denizen's method was the opposite- claim positive knowledge with no testability.

[Mr Gray]

I have posted many times that if you look at fingerprints or Dna there are literally hundreds of thousands of scientific articles looking at their reliability. that's why they can be used in evidence in court...they are supported by evidence. What evidence is their to support the reliability of EVRDs...basically none.