Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Lace]

A point in which a  dog is able to smell cadaver odour hasn't been established either.   The body farm were using bodies that had been dead a while.   In order to ascertain when the odour is first picked up by the dog something would have to have been taken from the dead body as soon as that person had died.

[Carew]

Only Martin Grime can answer your question - it is his contention that his dogs could alert to the tiniest traces of residual scent being insitu- even after washing or after decades had passed.

IMO the dogs would most probably have alerted in other cars and other apartments had they been given the same time to search as in McCann related places - because I simply can't believe that a drop of blood had never been spilt in any of those other places during previous years.

Hmmmm.............I can`t believe that either.

I had hoped that keen "researchers" would have come up with the reasons why non-stop alerting isn`t wrecking every investigation, everywhere......when so many "alertable" contaminants could be present.

( Enjoyment of Science is in part about finding questions to ask, though.........not just getting answers! )

[Benice]

Hmmmm.............I can`t believe that either.

I had hoped that keen "researchers" would have come up with the reasons why non-stop alerting isn`t wrecking every investigation, everywhere......when so many "alertable" contaminants could be present.

( Enjoyment of Science is in part about finding questions to ask, though.........not just getting answers! )

There are two possibilities IMO.   Either we (a) accuse Martin Grime of lying about his dogs abilities or (b) we think of another reason.   

I prefer to go for (b) and suggest it is the time factor which prevented multiple alerts. 

I remember watching one of those Airport progs where sniffer dogs are used.  One dog alerted at a piece of luggage and drugs were found in it.  The handler said how pleased she was with her dog - especially at the speed in which the dog alerted on this occasion as sometimes it could take up to 15 mins. before she/he decided to alert.

[pathfinder73]

No. Eddie finds blood scent and/or cadaver.

An alert by Eddie alone does not indicate cadaver scent.

Yes and there was no blood found at the wardrobe alert or on the clothes. Keela will find blood that the human eye can't see and on weapons after they've been washed.

[Alfred R Jones]

What has that got to do with this case. Maybe they like to play when their not working. Eddie would bark if he was out somewhere not working and detected that death scent. He has been trained to do it!

What about when he detects the blood scent, or the multitude of other things that set them off?  They must be very noisy dogs to go walkies with, is all I can say.

[Alfred R Jones]

I am not struggling with anything sunshine. You seem to want to make something out of my post that wasn't there.

True, I was struggling to find something of substance in it to comment on.  But whilst you're on, what's your view of the research that I have linked to in my sig line?  Do you accept handler bias can be a factor in causing dogs to alert erroneously?  If you could give a straight answer rather than a riddle-me-ree retort it would be appreciated.

[Alfred R Jones]

Of course they only react when tasked to. That is part of their training.

We have certain sceptics here who simply won't accept this is true - I wonder why...? &%+((£

[OxfordBloo]

Yes and there was no blood found at the wardrobe alert or on the clothes. Keela will find blood that the human eye can't see and on weapons after they've been washed.

Eddie also reacts to minute traces of blood. That is why a single alert by him is not indicative of cadaver, but cadaver and/or blood.

[Carew]

We have certain sceptics here who simply won't accept this is true - I wonder why...? &%+((£

I wonder why no "handler bias" resulting in an alert anywhere in the McCann bathroom?..........Eddie was certainly tasked  and directed around it..........and it was highly likely the expectation of traces of bodily fluid might be present.

All sorts to wonder about.  &%+((£

[Alfred R Jones]

I wonder why no "handler bias" resulting in an alert anywhere in the McCann bathroom?..........Eddie was certainly tasked  and directed around it..........and it was highly likely the expectation of traces of bodily fluid might be present.

All sorts to wonder about.  &%+((£

You said it.

[Alice Purjorick]

True, I was struggling to find something of substance in it to comment on.  But whilst you're on, what's your view of the research that I have linked to in my sig line?  Do you accept handler bias can be a factor in causing dogs to alert erroneously?  If you could give a straight answer rather than a riddle-me-ree retort it would be appreciated.

My view on the article you have linked is that there is abundant use of words like possible and might. Even the authors state "should be expanded to give a better understanding of cues handlers might be giving" or something of that general sense. "Clever Hans" seems to be the latest buzz word although his story is well known in the annals of animal cognition and observer-expectancy effect. [I know how to put it in a sentence but haven't a bleedin' clue what it means; but then I guess I am not alone there].
Now to answer your question  . the answer was posted on the "Science Thread" a while ago.

[Alfred R Jones]

My view on the article you have linked is that there is abundant use of words like possible and might. Even the authors state "should be expanded to give a better understanding of cues handlers might be giving" or something of that general sense. "Clever Hans" seems to be the latest buzz word although his story is well known in the annals of animal cognition and observer-expectancy effect. [I know how to put it in a sentence but haven't a bleedin' clue what it means; but then I guess I am not alone there].
Now to answer your question  . the answer was posted on the "Science Thread" a while ago.

I didn't think I'd get a straight answer.  This from the link seems pretty unequivocal however:

"The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present".

[Carew]

Applied to the case on topic, though............there seems to be no "handler belief" at all that a scent would be located  in the McCann bathroom......half-hearted "belief" in a slight whiff outside the balcony...........and quite considerable "handler belief" that a boy`s t-shirt would hit the jackpot.   

 

[Alice Purjorick]

I didn't think I'd get a straight answer.  This from the link seems pretty unequivocal however:

"The study, published in the January issue of the journal Animal Cognition, found that detection-dog/handler teams erroneously “alerted,” or identified a scent, when there was no scent present more than 200 times — particularly when the handler believed that there was scent present".

Well old son to paraphrase your comment to Faithlilly earlier....now remind me what was it you said?.
200 times sounds a lot. My first reaction on reading the article was 200 out of how many. I didn't find out how many. Do you know?
So you think the author's statement that more work needs to be done to clarify certain things, like "operator intervention", is not relevant or even suggestive that a firm conclusion cannot properly be reached.
It matters not anyway as long as it is recognised as a possible phenomenon by the operator.

[OxfordBloo]

I wonder why no "handler bias" resulting in an alert anywhere in the McCann bathroom?..........Eddie was certainly tasked  and directed around it..........and it was highly likely the expectation of traces of bodily fluid might be present.

All sorts to wonder about.  &%+((£

And maybe Grime did not emit a tell.