Were the dog alerts in any way significant?

[OxfordBloo]

Not "conscious cuing".........as in apparently tapping the hire car?

 Is that what is meant when comment is made regarding certain aspects of the deployment of the dogs?

No. That is blatant cheating.

[Carew]

No. That is blatant cheating.

So not entirely " all unconscious cuing", in your view?

[Carew]

I'm sorry to hear that, but that's still no excuse.

 

Oh well done!..........(Took you a while to come up with it though.)

[Alfred R Jones]

Oh well done!..........(Took you a while to come up with it though.)

No, it took me less than 30 seconds actually.

[Carew]

No, it took me less than 30 seconds actually.

 ` course it did!   

[Alfred R Jones]

 ` course it did!   

You're right - I wasn't having dinner,watching telly or speaking to a family member on the phone in the last two hours, I was simply staring at your post trying to think of a suitable response.  Two whole hours it took, that's how slow my brain works.   

[Carew]

You're right - I wasn't having dinner,watching telly or speaking to a family member on the phone in the last two hours, I was simply staring at your post trying to think of a suitable response.  Two whole hours it took, that's how slow my brain works.   

Enough......or........... ( perish the thought).........you could be accused of encouraging me to veer off topic !

[G-Unit]

I have just read the article on Alfred's signature. It confirms exactly what I have been saying. You can't study human beings like you can study rocks or other inanimate objects. Human beings think and react. The researchers told the handlers that there was scent where the red paper was. The handlers would of course direct the dogs to sniff there, and the dogs alerted. Dogs are very good at picking up signals by their owners, and detection dogs are no different. What it amounted to is that they lied to the handler, he or she believed them and the dog picked up on the handler's belief. I very much doubt that the PJ put a piece of red paper behind the couch for Martin Grimes.

[slartibartfast]

I have just read the article on Alfred's signature. It confirms exactly what I have been saying. You can't study human beings like you can study rocks or other inanimate objects. Human beings think and react. The researchers told the handlers that there was scent where the red paper was. The handlers would of course direct the dogs to sniff there, and the dogs alerted. Dogs are very good at picking up signals by their owners, and detection dogs are no different. What it amounted to is that they lied to the handler, he or she believed them and the dog picked up on the handler's belief. I very much doubt that the PJ put a piece of red paper behind the couch for Martin Grimes.

I think I said that a couple of days ago.

[Alfred R Jones]

I have just read the article on Alfred's signature. It confirms exactly what I have been saying. You can't study human beings like you can study rocks or other inanimate objects. Human beings think and react. The researchers told the handlers that there was scent where the red paper was. The handlers would of course direct the dogs to sniff there, and the dogs alerted. Dogs are very good at picking up signals by their owners, and detection dogs are no different. What it amounted to is that they lied to the handler, he or she believed them and the dog picked up on the handler's belief. I very much doubt that the PJ put a piece of red paper behind the couch for Martin Grimes.

the  PJ didn't need a piece of paper, it was completely apparent which were the McCanns' apartment and car!

[pegasus]

Anyone who complains about a dog being cued (directed where to sniff) should watch the video of MG repeatedly cueing a dog to examine every nook and cranny of a wicker chair in 5A. Every time the dog leaves, MG calls it back to sniff more. Did the dog signal? No.
This is video proof that asking a dog to repeatedly examine an area or object, does not cause the dog to alert.

And re the handler knowing who lived at the residence being examined, look at the Sharp case, the handler of the dog there knew exactly which residence they were at. Did that make the dog's signal incorrect? The only problem there was that police ignored the dog's signal first time round. That dog and its handler solved the case. 

[G-Unit]

the  PJ didn't need a piece of paper, it was completely apparent which were the McCanns' apartment and car!

Was it also completely apparent that alerting behind the couch would yield DNA samples? Martin Grime had a whole apartment to chose from, so why did he chose that spot?

[OxfordBloo]

Was it also completely apparent that alerting behind the couch would yield DNA samples? Martin Grime had a whole apartment to chose from, so why did he chose that spot?

Maybe Eddie did alert to blood there.

[Carew]

I have been clear as clear can be about this.  If you can find one single post of mine in which I accuse Grime of consciously cueing the dogs then kindly reproduce it here.  Then let's see who does the wriggling.

Hmmmm........your reply to me earlier on in the thread.....emboldened below.......
It could seem that you are prepared to accept "conscious cuing" as an integral part of the handler instruction process.

Or did you mean only handlers other than the one involved in the case under discussion?


55


Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. / Re: Were the dog alerts in any way significant?
« on: May 05, 2015, 02:16:26 PM »


Quote from: Carew on May 05, 2015, 01:44:28 PM

Has science shown yet why errors in alerts.... due to contaminants.... blood or non-blood, present at all investigation sites are not occurring on a continual basis, anywhere and everywhere.....rendering deployment of the dogs a waste of time?

Alfie
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?

[Alfred R Jones]

Was it also completely apparent that alerting behind the couch would yield DNA samples? Martin Grime had a whole apartment to chose from, so why did he chose that spot?

What DNA matter was recovered?  Evidence of a dead body?  Isn't it likely that DNA samples could have been recovered from pretty much everywhere in the apartment, the kitchen and bathroom especially?