CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.

[G-Unit]

Thank you for so closely confirming the reaction of an unscientific dog believer, as predicted in my post immediately above it. All Black Swan and Monster Barring.

Nice cut and paste though.

As you have said, no-one knows whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not. Your 'skeptical' stance, which you have attempted to support by quoting possibly unreliable studies and statistical analysis is no more valid than the stance of the dog 'believers'.

[OxfordBloo]

As you have said, no-one knows whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not. Your 'skeptical' stance, which you have attempted to support by quoting possibly unreliable studies and statistical analysis is no more valid than the stance of the dog 'believers'.

I don't rely on any empirical evidence. I have neither produced nor quoted any.

My position is simply that their accuracy is unknown and I am open to persuasion.

Persuade ahead.

[misty]

As you have said, no-one knows whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not. Your 'skeptical' stance, which you have attempted to support by quoting possibly unreliable studies and statistical analysis is no more valid than the stance of the dog 'believers'.

Not only does no-one know whether Eddie was alerting correctly or not, no-one knows exactly how the traces of any correct alerts came to be in the apartment/car/on the clothes.

[Benice]

I wonder why no alerts were made by the dogs in the last place the McCanns were that night - i.e. the Payne's apartment - where they spent several hours after the police had departed - in the same clothing they had worn all that evening -  and any scent would have been at it's strongest?     

[Alfred R Jones]

I can't be bothered with your constant waffling. Amaral's point of view is relevant to this case and he is 100% confident the dogs were correct.

Based on what?  Even Grime hasn't stated he is 100% convinced the dogs were correct as far as I can recall...

[Mr Gray]

I can't be bothered with your constant waffling. Amaral's point of view is relevant to this case and he is 100% confident the dogs were correct.

That's one of the reasons he's in so much trouble....and as I pointed out...his deluded followers believe him

[G-Unit]

I don't rely on any empirical evidence. I have neither produced nor quoted any.

My position is simply that their accuracy is unknown and I am open to persuasion.

Persuade ahead.

Clearly untrue from your first post on this thread. That's why i have spent so much time asking for links to your 'scientific' experiments which you refused to produce;

In your first post you said;

My favourite scientifically valid experiment on scent dogs was one where they and their handlers were asked to run a course of a series of patches of material and determine whether or not they bad the target odour. In the first course of the experiment no information was allowed to the handlers and no positive reactions occurred with any dog handler pair. In the second run the handlers were told in advance which patches had the target scent. This time the dogs were nearly totally accurate.

[Mr Gray]

Clearly untrue from your first post on this thread. That's why i have spent so much time asking for links to your 'scientific' experiments which you refused to produce;

My favourite scientifically valid experiment on scent dogs was one where they and their handlers were asked to run a course of a series of patches of material and determine whether or not they bad the target odour. In the first course of the experiment no information was allowed to the handlers and no positive reactions occurred with any dog handler pair. In the second run the handlers were told in advance which patches had the target scent. This time the dogs were nearly totally accurate.

so the dogs were cued by the handlers

[G-Unit]

so the dogs were cued by the handlers

Sorry, that was a cut and paste from OxfordBloo's first post on the thread 

[Mr Gray]

Sorry, that was a cut and paste from OxfordBloo's first post on the thread 

that's right and it showed the dog's were cued by the handlers

[G-Unit]

that's right and it showed the dog's were cued by the handlers

But studies such as that cannot be relied on as I showed earlier. Scientific method works well on the natural world, but not on people. I'm not going to repeat it all, just read back.

[Mr Gray]

But studies such as that cannot be relied on as I showed earlier. Scientific method works well on the natural world, but not on people. I'm not going to repeat it all, just read back.

you don't have to repeat it...SY believe maddie may still be alive...so what does that say for the alerts

[jassi]

I guess it says both are unproven possibilities,

[Alice Purjorick]

I guess it says both are unproven possibilities,

[Mr Gray]

I guess it says both are unproven possibilities,

mere possibilities....not the almost proof of death in the apartment that amaral and his supporters concluded....
mere possibilities..nothing more