Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[Carana]

This is what I was trying to find again (and there are points in it for all persuasions).

http://www.biologycorner.com/anatomy/senses/crimedogs.html

[Carew]

a) what things did I attribute to you that you did not say? b) read my post again, I made my point precisely which is - that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches. 
So, if we can accept that neither dogs nor their handlers are infallible for reasons such as unconscious handler bias we can begin to understand how it is possible that dog(s) can alert in Apartment 5a & a Hire Car without it necessarily proving that the McCanns dunnit, a concept which a lot of people seem to struggle with.  It's really not that complicated!

No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.

Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?

I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."

[Alice Purjorick]

a) what things did I attribute to you that you did not say? b) read my post again, I made my point precisely which is - that unconscious handler bias is a recognised and proven phenomenon in sniffer dog searches. 
So, if we can accept that neither dogs nor their handlers are infallible for reasons such as unconscious handler bias we can begin to understand how it is possible that dog(s) can alert in Apartment 5a & a Hire Car without it necessarily proving that the McCanns dunnit, a concept which a lot of people seem to struggle with.  It's really not that complicated!

You implied I was dissing the dogs which was a tad difficult to infer from what I actually said.
It isn't complicated and handler bias is but one of a few reasons which may explain what you are describing. I prefer to leave out such emotive terms as McCanns did or didn't dunnit as it tends to cloud peoples judgement on what is essentially a practical consideration of how dogs are deployed, how results are interpreted and their value. It always pays to look well beyond just that which you want to see.

[ferryman]

No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.

Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?

I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."

Do you mean "belittle" understanding?

Or do you mean highlight misunderstanding?

[Carew]

Do you mean "belittle" understanding?

Or do you mean highlight misunderstanding?

Sorry you misunderstood what I meant............try reading it again

[Mr Gray]

No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.

Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?

I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."

so there is a possibility that cadaver scent may have been in 5a...

we don't need the dogs to tell us that

[Carana]

No one is struggling with the concept that alerts in apartment 5A and the hire car do not necessarily prove that the McCanns "dunnit".........as you put it.

Maybe the need to deflect away the possibility that the alerts could have been an indication that the cadaver scent of the missing person may have been detected is behind your particular "struggle"?

I expect, as with others, attempting to belittle the understanding of others helps you cope with your "struggle."

I can only speak for myself, but I can't exclude the possibility that perhaps she wasn't taken out of 5A alive. If ever it was discovered that this was the case, it could mean that the dogs were correct, or that they alerted by chance for undetermined reasons.

I don't object to the possibility. What I object to is that dog alert = dead child, as that hasn't been substantiated and until any conclusive evidence of her demise is found, she is a missing child who may still be alive.

What I object to even more is the simplistic interpretation that dog alert = dead child, therefore necessarily parentswhatdunnit. Case closed.

Sometimes I feel that there is a football match on the pitch of public opinion and Madeleine is the football and I don't find that to be fair to her.

I don't find it fair either for those who knew and loved her, nor do I find it fair for others who were assaulted, nor for potential other victims if one or more perpetrators may still be at large.

[Lace]

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.

I am going to post what I have posted before,  these experts in the field are saying that a cadaver dog could pick up a scent of blood having been where alerted even if the blood is not there any more, so Keela would not have alerted -


Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.


edited to add -   5a was let to other families,  so it could have been something one of them had left on the floor or in the wardrobe.

[Lace]

Attracta Harron's body lay in a room for only 1 hour before disposal and Eddie alerted to it months later.

'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''

Cross-contamination is immediate.

When is the cadaver dog able to alert to the smell though?   That body had been there about an hour,  that doesn't mean the dog could smell it straight away then does it?

Cross contamination might be immediate,  but when can a cadaver dog smell it?   They don't know.

[ferryman]

Sorry you misunderstood what I meant............try reading it again

I've read it again.

You misunderstand that the dog alerts (in the Madeleine investigation) are meaningless.

[Carew]

so there is a possibility that cadaver scent may have been in 5a...

we don't need the dogs to tell us that

The cadaver scent of the missing person is what I said.............

I expect even you might need the dogs to "tell us" where the evidence necessary to verify the scent and identify the person is located.

[OxfordBloo]

I am going to post what I have posted before,  these experts in the field are saying that a cadaver dog could pick up a scent of blood having been where alerted even if the blood is not there any more, so Keela would not have alerted -


Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.


edited to add -   5a was let to other families,  so it could have been something one of them had left on the floor or in the wardrobe.

Not quite right. There can be nothing at all recoverable for forensic analysis but Keela can still correctly alert to it . The threshold for her detecting the small of blood can be lower than the threshold for the recovery of residue for testing.

[Brietta]

I am going to post what I have posted before,  these experts in the field are saying that a cadaver dog could pick up a scent of blood having been where alerted even if the blood is not there any more, so Keela would not have alerted -


Unfortunately, in such a situation the trier of fact may easily be misled as to both the accuracy and precision of the dog's actions: Accuracy in the sense that the dog (depending upon its level of training) may be reacting to something other than residual scent from decomposed human tissue; precision in that the dog may be reacting correctly to the scent of decomposed human tissue, but imprecise in the sense that the dog is not differentiating between whose decomposed human tissue is giving the scent. Further, there may be legitimate reasons for the scent being there: someone may have been injured and left bloody clothing there, someone may have left a used sanitary napkin, etc. Our research demonstrates that residual scent from decomposed human tissue persists in a closed building for many months at levels sufficient to cause a trained dog to alert.


edited to add -   5a was let to other families,  so it could have been something one of them had left on the floor or in the wardrobe.

As I see it Lace, the problem with the dogs is that on occasion their noses are too good and too sensitive.

It is said by some that dogs do not lie ... unfortunately, neither do they speak.

[Carew]

I've read it again.

You misunderstand that the dog alerts (in the Madeleine investigation) are meaningless.

It is difficult for many to cope with the fact that the dog alerts (in the Madeleine investigation) occurred at all.

I suspect you might  prefer "non-existent" to "meaningless."

[Lace]

Not quite right. There can be nothing at all recoverable for forensic analysis but Keela can still correctly alert to it . The threshold for her detecting the small of blood can be lower than the threshold for the recovery of residue for testing.

I haven't read anywhere that a blood dog will alert to the scent of blood that isn't there,  could you give me a link to that please?

I have read as I pasted the paragraph for pathfinder that a Cadaver dog will still smell the scent of blood even if the object with blood on it is not there,  but not a blood dog.