CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.

[OxfordBloo]

Let's get some facts out first. The only alerts that count for cadaver odour as a possibility are those that have Eddie alerting and Keela not. Only a couple of all the alerts indicate the possibility of cadaver odour. All others could be explained by the presence of minute traces of blood.

So only two alerts indicate a cadaver. And these were in the McCann apartment. So we do not have multiple alerts to be explained, only a couple. Every scent dog has a false positive and false negative rate and that alone is enough to explain these anomalies.

I agree that if it were multiple alerts that indicated cadaver, that would be suspicious, but in a series of alerts one would expect some errors.

Now let us look at blood contamination. No sign of major blood contamination was found in the McCann apartment, only tiny amounts. There is no evidence of a bloodbath, merely that of shaving accidents and stubbed toes.

Now we have to ask why there were no alerts elsewhere. Are we really asked to believe that every other apartment was totally free of such minute contamination from bloody accidents that happen every day? The fact that Keela did not alert anywhere else suggests that there is a major difference between the McCanns apartment and the others- Grime knew which apartment was under suspicion. Similarly with the cars, Grime knew which car was the McCanns and repeatedly called Eddie back to their car in a way not done with the others.

The investigation was hampered by the fact that Grime had knowledge which he unconsciously transferred to the dogs.

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.

Except there was no target scent at all; all patches were uncontaminated.

The only 'accuracy' was that the handler dog pairs identified the scent on the patches the handlers had been given the false information on.

This unconscious cueing even has a name which has been known for over a century 'The Clever Hans Effect'. Google it.

This is why dog alerts are just too uncertain to be admitted as evidence alone without confirmation.

247

[pathfinder73]

Let's get some facts out first. The only alerts that count for cadaver odour as a possibility are those that have Eddie alerting and Keela not. Only a couple of all the alerts indicate the possibility of cadaver odour. All others could be explained by the presence of minute traces of blood.

So only two alerts indicate a cadaver. And these were in the McCann apartment. So we do not have multiple alerts to be explained, only a couple. Every scent dog has a false positive and false negative rate and that alone is enough to explain these anomalies.

I agree that if it were multiple alerts that indicated cadaver, that would be suspicious, but in a series of alerts one would expect some errors.

Now let us look at blood contamination. No sign of major blood contamination was found in the McCann apartment, only tiny amounts. There is no evidence of a bloodbath, merely that of shaving accidents and stubbed toes.

Now we have to ask why there were no alerts elsewhere. Are we really asked to believe that every other apartment was totally free of such minute contamination from bloody accidents that happen every day? The fact that Keela did not alert anywhere else suggests that there is a major difference between the McCanns apartment and the others- Grime knew which apartment was under suspicion. Similarly with the cars, Grime knew which car was the McCanns and repeatedly called Eddie back to their car in a way not done with the others.

The investigation was hampered by the fact that Grime had knowledge which he unconsciously transferred to the dogs.

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.

Except there was no target scent at all; all patches were uncontaminated.

The only 'accuracy' was that the handler dog pairs identified the scent on the patches the handlers had been given the false information on.

This unconscious cueing even has a name which has been known for over a century 'The Clever Hans Effect'. Google it.

This is why dog alerts are just too uncertain to be admitted as evidence alone without confirmation.

Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............

[OxfordBloo]

Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............

No he did not say that the alert was for cadaver. Unless you can provide a cite.

There was Gerry's blood in the car on the key fob which easily explains any reaction from both dogs, both of whom alert to blood.

Everything is circumstantial

[Jean-Pierre]

Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............

Have you actually bothered to read his report?   

Here is a link

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm



 

[Mr Gray]

Martin Grime disagrees. In his opinion Eddie's alerts were for cadaver and you can add the clothes to that list. I believe that strong scent Eddie picked up past the car was cadaver scent not microscopic blood which Keela has to get in real close to detect the source. Bad smells in the car, boot left open............

this is a prime example of someone with strong beliefs who simply does not understand the evidence...a typical sceptic

[OxfordBloo]

Have you actually bothered to read his report?   

Here is a link

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

It is one of the problems with fighting ignorance that people can become so set in their views they can no longer interpret evidence that is contrary to their view and interpret as supportive to their view that which destroys it completely. There is a term for this- cognitive dissonance.

[Jean-Pierre]

It is one of the problems with fighting ignorance that people can become so set in their views they can no longer interpret evidence that is contrary to their view and interpret as supportive to their view that which destroys it completely. There is a term for this- cognitive dissonance.

Exactly. Actually reading Grimes report and the associated forensic tests and commenatary in a dispassionate way puts the "hate" campaign aginst the McCanns in perspective. 

[OxfordBloo]

Exactly. Actually reading Grimes report and the associated forensic tests and commenatary in a dispassionate way puts the "hate" campaign aginst the McCanns in perspective.

The same can be said of a dispassionate reading of the assessments of the DNA evidence.

[Jean-Pierre]

The same can be said of a dispassionate reading of the assessments of the DNA evidence.

Which bit are your referring to?  The FSS report on the samples, or the reports relating to a reference sample for Madeleine.

Both of which have been wilfully misinterpreted.  I can understand that in some of the sceptics, but Amaral had no excuse.   

[pathfinder73]

No he did not say that the alert was for cadaver. Unless you can provide a cite.

There was Gerry's blood in the car on the key fob which easily explains any reaction from both dogs, both of whom alert to blood.

Everything is circumstantial

Have you actually bothered to read his report?   

Here is a link

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm



 

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

[OxfordBloo]

Which bit are your referring to?  The FSS report on the samples, or the reports relating to a reference sample for Madeleine.

Both of which have been wilfully misinterpreted.  I can understand that in some of the sceptics, but Amaral had no excuse.

Both Amaral and other McCann accusers have misinterpreted all the DNA evidence whether from ignorance or from anger. Nothing in the Forensic blood analyses support any case against the McCanns as anyone who understands LCN DNA would know. Suggesting that it is in any manner probative of any wrong doing is a sign of genetics and biological ignorance.

[OxfordBloo]

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.

Suggestive not Probative.

"no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence."

No corroborative evidence was found. Therefore although the alert was suggestive it could have been otherwise. It is not probative.

[mercury]

Let's get some facts out first. The only alerts that count for cadaver odour as a possibility are those that have Eddie alerting and Keela not. Only a couple of all the alerts indicate the possibility of cadaver odour. All others could be explained by the presence of minute traces of blood.

Blatant crap
cadaver dog odour alerts amount to seven WITHOUT corroboration from a blood dog that they were blood not two

Wardrobe
Garden
Items of clothing x 3
Verandah outside outside parents bedroom
Soft toy



what where you saying about "facts" ?

[/quote]

[OxfordBloo]

Blatant crap
cadaver dog odour alerts amount to seven WITHOUT corroboration from a blood dog that they were blood not two

Wardrobe
Garden
Items of clothing x 3
Verandah outside outside parents bedroom
Soft toy



what where you saying about "facts" ?

To indicate cadaver odour, Eddie must react and Keela must ignore. Are you saying that each of those alerts were Eddie positive, Keela negative?

[mercury]

To indicate cadaver odour, Eddie must react and Keela must ignore. Are you saying that each of those alerts were Eddie positive, Keela negative?

You asserted that only a couple (I presume two)  of the cadaver dog alerts could be atributed to cadaver odour....the rest to blood.

I said thats wrong
There were seven WITHOUT a blood dog cooroboratioon and thats not forgetting a blood dog corroboratuin does not not automatically mean  NOT a cadaver scent in the same place

We know the cadaver dog alerted in several  (not a couple) places either where the blood dog did not alert or where the files do not tell us if it did or not
What we know from the files: ie where both dogs documented as utlised
cadaver dog alert with blood dog alert = 2 places, parents' car  and living room flat 5a
cadaver dog  alert with no blood dog alert = clothes x 3, oarebts' bedroom in fkat 5a  = 4

What we know from the files of only the cadaver dog utlised
Cadaver dog alerted in the verandah of flat 5a
Cadaver dog alerted in the garden of flat  5a
Cadaver dog alerted to a soft toy

On balance the cadaver dog alerted qute a few times, and as I posted yesterday or so not once anywhere else

So,  there you go amigo. I have to run to work now.