Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Alice Purjorick]

I can only go on his analysis of the evidence which is patently unscientific.

Which doesn't address my second option of taking the p**s.

[G-Unit]

Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa in G5A. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Eddie and Keela alerted to the car hired by the McCanns. Samples were taken and DNA was found. It's pretty certain that Keela was alerting to blood as that's what she was trained to do.

Eddie alerted to the main bedroom in G5A and to some clothes and a toy. Keela did not alert. As he was correct in his other alerts it's quite possible that he was correct with these alerts also.

No proof of anything was found by forensic analysis, but the alerts shouldn't be ruled out completely. They are an indication which, taken with other indications, could suggest a direction for investigation. Therefore they could be significant.

The question is; why are some people so determined to discredit these dogs and their handler and rule out the dog's alerts completely? Methinks they protest too much.

[pathfinder73]

The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they?  In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't.  Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?

That is complete rubbish! MG doesn't instruct Eddie to alert. He is trained not to bark. Look at the first alert in this case. Eddie alone alerted at the wardrobe and it had nothing to to do with MG. He directs the search and knows his dog. Eddie is the one that barks not MG 

[Alfred R Jones]

Eddie and Keela alerted behind the sofa in G5A. Samples were taken and DNA was found. Eddie and Keela alerted to the car hired by the McCanns. Samples were taken and DNA was found. It's pretty certain that Keela was alerting to blood as that's what she was trained to do.

Eddie alerted to the main bedroom in G5A and to some clothes and a toy. Keela did not alert. As he was correct in his other alerts it's quite possible that he was correct with these alerts also.

No proof of anything was found by forensic analysis, but the alerts shouldn't be ruled out completely. They are an indication which, taken with other indications, could suggest a direction for investigation. Therefore they could be significant.

The question is; why are some people so determined to discredit these dogs and their handler and rule out the dog's alerts completely? Methinks they protest too much.

Similarly one could ask - why so defensive about the dog alerts?  Why not accept that the dogs and their handlers are not infallible and mistakes can occur.  Time to read the link in my sig line now if you haven't already done so.

[Alfred R Jones]

That is complete rubbish! MG doesn't instruct Eddie to alert. He is trained not to bark. Look at the first alert in this case. Eddie alone alerted at the wardrobe and it had nothing to to do with MG. He directs the search and knows his dog. Eddie is the one that barks not MG 

It's complete rubbish is it?  In which case perhaps you can offer Carew an explanation as to why the dog isn't permanently alerting all over the place all day, every day from morn until night?  Is it kept in a sterile environment until deployed?

[pathfinder73]

It's complete rubbish is it?  In which case perhaps you can offer Carew an explanation as to why the dog isn't permanently alerting all over the place all day, every day from morn until night?  Is it kept in a sterile environment until deployed?

Because they are trained every day of their lives and know how to their job properly. These dogs are looking for evidence of a body not a razor cut in the bathroom.

[Alice Purjorick]

The dogs get "switched on" by handler command, don't they?  In other words if their handler doesn't instruct them to alert they won't.  Which is carte blanche for handler bias, conscious or unconscious to come into play, isn't it?

Pretty much like any tool I guess. So if we extend that logically any tool, in the wider sense of the word, operator is guilty of "handler" bias because he is in control of the operator interface.
A novel concept if I may say so.

[Brietta]

Similarly the key fob to the car was put into a bucket of sand for a confirmation test and both dogs alerted to it again.

Hate to be pedantic but sometimes the devil is in the detail ... the key fob wasn't put into the bucket of sand ... it was but underneath the box which contained sand.


**snip
At about 04.14 it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of a box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which, effectively, the vehicle?s key had been hidden.

**snip
At about 04.51, it was observed that the dog ?marked? the area of the box containing sand from the Fire Service, underneath which the key had been hidden.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DOGS_INSPECTION.htm

[Brietta]

Had the case ever come to trial the gym and the underground car park fiascos would have been laughed out of court.

The only argument I would have with that is that I doubt any of it would have been admissible as evidence in the first instance.

[G-Unit]

Similarly one could ask - why so defensive about the dog alerts?  Why not accept that the dogs and their handlers are not infallible and mistakes can occur.  Time to read the link in my sig line now if you haven't already done so.

Rather than trawl the internet to prove my point I am limiting myself to this case and these dogs. The dogs were correct in two alerts. You cannot disprove that no matter how many articles you quote. Why should Eddie's other alerts be discounted therefore? He could have been wrong, but equally he could have been right. I don't know and neither does anyone else. When and if living child is found we will all know.

[Alfred R Jones]

Because they are trained every day of their lives and know how to their job properly. These dogs are looking for evidence of a body not a razor cut in the bathroom.

Are the dogs psychic then?  They know when they are meant to be looking for blood and bits of body and they know when to pipe down without anyone having to tell them?

[Carana]

Rather than trawl the internet to prove my point I am limiting myself to this case and these dogs. The dogs were correct in two alerts. You cannot disprove that no matter how many articles you quote. Why should Eddie's other alerts be discounted therefore? He could have been wrong, but equally he could have been right. I don't know and neither does anyone else. When and if living child is found we will all know.

I still don't understand your basis for saying "The dogs were correct in two alerts." How can you possibly know that in the absence of any corroborating forensic evidence?

[slartibartfast]

I still don't understand your basis for saying "The dogs were correct in two alerts." How can you possibly know that in the absence of any corroborating forensic evidence?

Doh, they found blood.

[Alfred R Jones]

Pretty much like any tool I guess. So if we extend that logically any tool, in the wider sense of the word, operator is guilty of "handler" bias because he is in control of the operator interface.
A novel concept if I may say so.

What part of dog handler bias do you struggle with Alice?  Are you denying that it exists?

[Brietta]

Are the dogs psychic then?  They know when they are meant to be looking for blood and bits of body and they know when to pipe down without anyone having to tell them?

Evident from the video is Martin Grime making the dog sit before cuing him to start ... the dog then adopts 'sniffer mode' to start work.

Evident from the video is Martin Grime standing his dog down by making him sit ... the dog then knows, no more sniffing required, job done.   Simples.

I believe the only deviation from this procedure might have been when the team were entering apartment 5A.