CSI and cadaver dogs - some facts and statistics.

[Anna]

And no-one can prove that their alerts were false positives, no matter how much they try.

That is absolutely true, G. Just as no-one can prove that the alerts were positive to cadaver scent.

[OxfordBloo]

Then you can name one missing case where Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent and the person has turned up alive. That should be easy peasy for a self-proclaimed dog expert like you.

First, an alert by Eddie does not indicate a cadaver has been there. He also alerts to dead pigs and any human or pig blood. They also alert to transferred scent on objects that have previously been in the presence of or in contact with a cadaver.

If a blood dog fails to alert to the same place where he did, that suggests the possibility of the presence of a cadaver, but only a finite possibility.

That is not anyway an exclusive test.

There are however many cases where Eddie has alerted and no proof of death has been produced and there may be many cases where he has failed to react while the target odour was present. Research suggests that all scent dogs have false positives and false negatives.

And in answer to your question, the cadaver dog (I can't remember if it was Eddie) reacted in the case of the missing girl that later turned up alive hidden in the box under a bed. This was blamed on second hand furniture that had been bought from a house where someone had died.

So there is your example.

[OxfordBloo]

And no-one can prove that their alerts were false positives, no matter how much they try.

And no one can prove that dogs are 100% accurate, both theoretically or practically.

Even if a dog alerts regularly correctly, the next possible test could be a failure.

Every justifiable investigation has shown all scent dogs tested to be fallible.

Grime never claims they are 100% accurate.

[G-Unit]

First, an alert by Eddie does not indicate a cadaver has been there. He also alerts to dead pigs and any human or pig blood. They also alert to transferred scent on objects that have previously been in the presence of or in contact with a cadaver.

If a blood dog fails to alert to the same place where he did, that suggests the possibility of the presence of a cadaver, but only a finite possibility.

That is not anyway an exclusive test.

There are however many cases where Eddie has alerted and no proof of death has been produced and there may be many cases where he has failed to react while the target odour was present. Research suggests that all scent dogs have false positives and false negatives.

And in answer to your question, the cadaver dog (I can't remember if it was Eddie) reacted in the case of the missing girl that later turned up alive hidden in the box under a bed. This was blamed on second hand furniture that had been bought from a house where someone had died.

So there is your example.

I await your links showing Eddie's false alerts.

[Mr Gray]

If Maddie is still alive...which is  a possibility according to SY and amaral's solicitor...then what was eddie alerting to ...
can anyone answer that question

[Mr Gray]

I await your links showing Eddie's false alerts.

if it's a possibility that maddie may still be alive then that would make them all false

[OxfordBloo]

I await your links showing Eddie's false alerts.

Even Grime does not say that Eddie is infallible.

Grime states clearly that Eddie reacts to dead pig and blood from a living person.


[ moderated ]

[pathfinder73]

that's  a very silly question...so if we take PDL whose cadaver scent was eddies supposedly alerting to...

Have you seen Madeleine lately? Maybe she will be the FIRST missing person to turn up alive after Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent.

[OxfordBloo]

Have you seen Madeleine lately? Maybe she will be the FIRST missing person to turn up alive after Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent.

If I can quote a case where Eddie reacted and the person later turned up, will you admit that cadaver dogs are fallible?

[stephen25000]

If I can quote a case where Eddie reacted and the person later turned up, will you admit that cadaver dogs are fallible?

What is also pertinent, is in how many cases did Eddie indicate correctly.

[Carana]

Have you seen Madeleine lately? Maybe she will be the FIRST missing person to turn up alive after Eddie has alerted to cadaver scent.

Can you provide a list of all the missing people that Eddie searched for and how many victims he correctly alerted to based on corroborated evidence?

[Carana]

What is also pertinent, is in how many cases did Eddie indicate correctly.

How many was that?

[G-Unit]

Even Grime does not say that Eddie is infallible.

Grime states clearly that Eddie reacts to dead pig and blood from a living person.

Neither does Martin Grime say that Eddie is fallible. If you assert that he is then it's your place to provide a basis for your assertion.

In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.
In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

[OxfordBloo]

Neither does Martin Grime say that Eddie is fallible. If you assert that he is then it's your place to provide a basis for your assertion.

In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.
In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

He repeatedly says they may be fallible. His testimony is full of caveats.

[OxfordBloo]

What is also pertinent, is in how many cases did Eddie indicate correctly.

No. A single failure indicates fallibility.