So what can Cadaver and CSI dogs tell us?

[Jean-Pierre]

Semen and blood I read...taking PDL case...no semen or blood, only in flat of missing person? What are the chances

And does a detection of blood mean that a dead body was there?

[mercury]

And does a detection of blood mean that a dead body was there?

No, next?

[ferryman]

Semen and blood I read...taking PDL case...no semen or blood, only in flat of missing person? What are the chances

With mention of semen, you drag Grime further into the mire.

He said about the (late) Eddie (RIP) that the dog would not react to pseudo-scents.

It's true that dogs trained on human remains won't react to pseudo-scents, a principal constituent of which is cadaverine, the prime scent-emitter of semen.

Yet in the Sam Parker case, we are told Eddie reacted to a 'sample pair of pants', almost certainly laced with a pseudo-scent.

Whoops .....

[ferryman]

Does 'eddie' alert only to cadaver odour?  Or to other things as well?

Eddie is dead.

But he did alert to blood

To cadaver scent.

To other stuff his master could persuade him to alert to ....

[mercury]

With mention of semen, you drag Grime further into the mire.

He said about the (late) Eddie (RIP) that the dog would not react to pseudo-scents.

It's true that dogs trained on human remains won't react to pseudo-scents, a principal constituent of which is cadaverine, the prime scent-emitter of semen.

Yet in the Sam Parker case, we are told Eddie reacted to a 'sample pair of pants', almost certainly laced with a pseudo-scent.

Whoops .....

Its in one if his reports or cv ..cant remember, only you trying to drag him into the mire as without doing so you have no case against the dog evidence...

[Jean-Pierre]

No, next?

So in that case your post 400 above makes no sense.   If dog alerts to both then it's far more likely that the alerts were to blood than to a dead body. 

[mercury]

So in that case your post 400 above makes no sense.   If dog alerts to both then it's far more likely that the alerts were to blood than to a dead body.

You still at that stage of the calculation?

[Mr Gray]

Its in one if his reports or cv ..cant remember, only you trying to drag him into the mire as without doing so you have no case against the dog evidence...

there is no dog evidence

[Jean-Pierre]

You still at that stage of the calculation?

The dogs function is to narrow down the search for physical evidence.  As you know.  And you also know what was found.  Or rather what was not found. 

But I don't want to burst your 'great detective' bubble.

[mercury]

The dogs function is to narrow down the search for physical evidence.  As you know.  And you also know what was found.  Or rather what was not found. 

But I don't want to burst your 'great detective' bubble.

Why so personal and snidy?
The dogs deployment is to find cadaver scent and blood, not to narrow down any search, all flats were searched, they alerted in ONE ONLY and it wasng just to blood as well YOU know too....verandah cadaver dig alert, no blood dog alert, parents bedroom...same

[Carana]

What I find strange is that the coconut was not looked at under a microscope.......histology...That would have provided a  100% answer.

Wouldn't the Kew Gardens person have done that?

If you mean prior to that... I'm not sure whether this basic test had taken place in situ or not.

[Mr Gray]

Wouldn't the Kew Gardens person have done that?

If you mean prior to that... I'm not sure whether this basic test had taken place in situ or not.

It really is a simple and totally conclusive test

[ferryman]

Intelligence is not evidence (a distinction recognised by the courts).

Intelligence can lead to evidence.

Or intelligence can be dismissed entirely.

In PdL, at the point Mark Harrison (and even Grime) said no incriminating inference could be made from the reactions of the dogs, they ceased, even, to be 'intelligence'.

[Jean-Pierre]

Why so personal and snidy?
The dogs deployment is to find cadaver scent and blood, not to narrow down any search, all flats were searched, they alerted in ONE ONLY and it wasng just to blood as well YOU know too....verandah cadaver dig alert, no blood dog alert, parents bedroom...same

My apologies - I hadn't realised you were such a sensitive little flower.

If the dogs function is not to locate physical evidence maybe you had better tell Martin Grime.   

[Mr Gray]

Intelligence is not evidence (a distinction recognised by the courts).

Intelligence can lead to evidence.

Or intelligence can be dismissed entirely.

In PdL, at the point Mark Harrison (and even Grime) said no incriminating inference could be made from the reactions of the dogs, they ceased, even, to be 'intelligence'.

precisely...it seems some cannot accept reality