Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[OxfordBloo]

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.

Grime clearly states that Keela can detect the presence of blood even when in such minute quantities that there is no residue.

[Lace]

Grime clearly states that Keela can detect the presence of blood even when in such minute quantities that there is no residue.

All I can find is Grime saying that Keela will alert even if the article has been washed or cleaned.

I am talking about an article that has lain in 5a and then taken away.    Keela wouldn't have it to smell.

[OxfordBloo]

All I can find is Grime saying that Keela will alert even if the article has been washed or cleaned.

I am talking about an article that has lain in 5a and then taken away.    Keela wouldn't have it to smell.

No, but if blood was there but was so minute that it was not recoverable or too small to analyse, then the alert would still be possibly valid.

[Jean-Pierre]

No, but if blood was there but was so minute that it was not recoverable or too small to analyse, then the alert would still be possibly valid.

A court would only take physical evidence as valid. 

[Carana]

A court would only take physical evidence as valid.

Where and when? There was no relevant physical evidence of manslaughter/ murder in the Joana case.

[Lace]

No, but if blood was there but was so minute that it was not recoverable or too small to analyse, then the alert would still be possibly valid.

If though according to part of the article I posted for Pfinder,  a bloody hankie or something had been put in the wardrobe or on the floor then taken away,   Keela would have had nothing to smell as the blood would have been on the article taken away,   yet,  Eddie on the other hand would smell the odour and alert, especially if he has been called back numerous times and made to smell the tiles over and over.

[Carana]

A court would only take physical evidence as valid.

In theory. This is not what happened in the Joana case.

[Carana]

Grime clearly states that Keela can detect the presence of blood even when in such minute quantities that there is no residue.

How has that been proven?

[OxfordBloo]

How has that been proven?

By putting blood as a marker, then investigating if any detritus is left. Then getting the dog to choose where she smells the blood. I ring Grime's claim that this is possible because the main odour of blood is due to its iron content rather than the organic components.

[Carana]

By putting blood as a marker, then investigating if any detritus is left. Then getting the dog to choose where she smells the blood. I ring Grime's claim that this is possible because the main odour of blood is due to its iron content rather than the organic components.

Possible. But not established as undisputed fact, is it?

I had thought of the possibility of a small blood stain being put through a washing cycle and she still reacted. Did any experiments go beyond that potential one?

[John]

In theory. This is not what happened in the Joana case.

Of course it did.  The physical evidence in the house played an important part in the case.

[OxfordBloo]

Possible. But not established as undisputed fact, is it?

I had thought of the possibility of a small blood stain being put through a washing cycle and she still reacted. Did any experiments go beyond that potential one?

Well there is a choice. Either Keela does react to trace amounts or she makes multiple false alerts as she has alerted many times when no residue was found.

Given that we know from experiments that dogs are usually about eighty per cent correct, that would be surprising.

[stephen25000]

Well there is a choice. Either Keela does react to trace amounts or she makes multiple false alerts as she has alerted many times when no residue was found.

Given that we know from experiments that dogs are usually about eighty per cent correct, that would be surprising.

You claim to have read up on dog handling.

Has this included actual physical experience of handling dogs in this field ?

[OxfordBloo]

You claim to have read up on dog handling.

Has this included actual physical experience of handling dogs in this field ?

Of course not. But I also have a good knowledge os astrophysics and have never left the earth.

Don't be silly.

[Alfred R Jones]

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."

This thread asks "were the dog alerts in any way significant?"  In order to fully comprehend their significance one needs to understand how accurate they are, and what factors may positively or negatively affect the performance of the dogs.  It is therefore not "deflecting" as you put it, but perfectly valid to the discussion, to consider whether or not it is possible that unconscious cueing from the handler had a part to play in the dogs' alerts.  I don't struggle with the concept that the dogs may actually have alerted to cadaver odour, and can think of several reasons why cadaver odour may actually have been present in the apartment.  Personally, I think the least likely reason for its presence is that it was emitted from the corpse of a small child, and that's where you and I differ in our views on this matter.