A fresh look at Eddie the cadaver dog and those alerts.

[Lace]

Having worked with dogs over many years I must point out that it is not the dog who can't tell the difference but the handler. All sniffer dogs, be they a tracker dog, a CSI dog or a cadaver dog can most certainly differentiate between different odours but the animal cannot relay that information to its handler if it doesn't know how.  The fault is with the inadequate training, not the dog.

The big disadvantage in the UK was that under our Laws,  trainers were refused access to train dogs on real human cadavers so instead had to use a pig equivalent or a piece of human bone.  This in my opinion was the root of the problem, as always the US has led the way in this field with their CSI body farms etc...

I believe Grime said that none of the cadaver dogs could tell the difference didn't he?

[John]

I believe Grime said that none of the cadaver dogs could tell the difference didn't he?

I think he didn't explain it awfully well.  The dogs could but couldn't communicate it subsequently.

Most dogs can differentiate between substances but they have no way of communicating those differences if they arent trained to do so.  To a dog, searching for a scent is merely a game for which he or she has been trained.  If they aren't trained to report a difference between pigs and humans then they will alert as if they are the same.

If you train a dog to find a dead fish he will find a dead fish, if you train him to find a dead pig he will find a dead pig, if you train him to look for a dead pig and dead humans using human bone he will find either but has no way to tell his handler which is which.  It all comes down to inadequate training on suitable materials. 

If it is still illegal in the UK to use human cadaver material to assist in the proper training of dogs then this needs amending.  We shouldn't be dependent on our American cousins for this resource.

[pathfinder73]

But Eddie had never trained on human cadavars (at that stage anyhow).

A bacon sarnie is dead pig,, so why may Eddie not have alerted to it?

The dog has however considerable experience in operational recovery of human remains and evidential forensic material and has trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog involves the use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact.

The E.V.R.D. will locate cadaver, whether in the whole or parts thereof; deposited surface or sub-surface to a depth of approximately 3-4 feet shortly after death to the advanced stages of deposition and putrefaction through to skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if large quantities of accelerant have been involved.

The dog will locate human cadaver in water either from the bank side or when deployed in a boat where a large area may be covered using a gridding system.

The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. This may be completed by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent samples being taken on sterile gauze pads and the scent check being completed by scent discrimination exercise at a suitable venue.

The dog will alert to the presence of 'dead body' scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to identify the exhaust of the scent through fissures in bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where controls may be included to increase assurty. I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a ST100 Scent Transference Unit. The unit is designed in a two-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the ST100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for use within scent discrimination exercises. The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the ST 100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed. Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access. Operational use of the ST100 is in a developmental stage.

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

[Lace]

I think he didn't explain it awfully well.  The dogs could but couldn't communicate it subsequently.

Most dogs can differentiate between substances but they have no way of communicating those differences if they arent trained to do so.  To a dog, searching for a scent is merely a game for which he or she has been trained.  If they aren't trained to report a difference between pigs and humans then they will alert as if they are the same.

If you train a dog to find a dead fish he will find a dead fish, if you train him to find a dead pig he will find a dead pig, if you train him to look for a dead pig and dead humans using human bone he will find either but has no way to tell his handler which is which.  It all comes down to inadequate training on suitable materials. 

If it is still illegal in the UK to use human cadaver material to assist in the proper training of dogs then this needs amending.  We shouldn't be dependent on our American cousins for this resource.

I have often wondered how you can train a cadaver dog which has been trained to alert to dead pig,  to alert to a human dead body.    How can you say to the dog 'right,  forget the pig now,  you have to alert to dead human instead.'   It's impossible to do that,  it is obvious that the dog is going to alert to both isn't it.

[Angelo222]

I have often wondered how you can train a cadaver dog which has been trained to alert to dead pig,  to alert to a human dead body.    How can you say to the dog 'right,  forget the pig now,  you have to alert to dead human instead.'   It's impossible to do that,  it is obvious that the dog is going to alert to both isn't it.

I agree Lace, training a dog is a long process, once a dog has learned to alert to one specific substance he will continue to do so.  Retraining is not always an option and not always successful I believe.

[John]

Readers have to be careful not to confuse cadaverine with human cadaverine.

[ferryman]

The dog has however considerable experience in operational recovery of human remains and evidential forensic material and has trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog involves the use of collection of 'Dead body scent' odour from corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact.

The E.V.R.D. will locate cadaver, whether in the whole or parts thereof; deposited surface or sub-surface to a depth of approximately 3-4 feet shortly after death to the advanced stages of deposition and putrefaction through to skeletal. This includes incinerated remains even if large quantities of accelerant have been involved.

The dog will locate human cadaver in water either from the bank side or when deployed in a boat where a large area may be covered using a gridding system.

The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations. This may be completed by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent samples being taken on sterile gauze pads and the scent check being completed by scent discrimination exercise at a suitable venue.

The dog will alert to the presence of 'dead body' scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to identify the exhaust of the scent through fissures in bedrock or watercourses. A geophysical survey of the area will then reduce the size of the search area.

The dog may be used to screen clothing, vehicles or property in a suitable environment. This is completed in a scent discrimination exercise where controls may be included to increase assurty. I have developed the training of the E.V.R.D. to include the screening of scent pads taken from motor vehicles, property or scenes by a ST100 Scent Transference Unit. The unit is designed in a two-part design. The main body is a battery operated electrical device that draws air in at to the front and exhausts through the rear. There is no 're-circulation' of air within the unit. The second part is a 'grilled' hood that fits to the main body. A sterile gauze pad is fitted into the hood. When operated, the ST100 draws air through the hood and the sterile gauze pad and exhausts through ports to the rear. 'Scent' is trapped in the gauze, which may then be forensically stored for use within scent discrimination exercises. The ST 100 unit is cleaned following use in such a manner that no residual scent is apparent. This is checked by control measures where the dog is allowed to search a given area where the ST 100 is secreted. Any response by the dog would suggest contamination. Tests have shown that the decontamination procedures are effective in this case with the dog NOT alerting to the device when completed. Use of the ST 100 is recommended when subject vehicles, property, clothing, premises are to be forensically protected from contamination by the dog, and for covert deployment. At all other times best practice would be for the dog to be given direct access. Operational use of the ST100 is in a developmental stage.

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

This article confirms that Grime went to America on SYP business in the New Year 2006.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-372863/The-police-dog-earns-Chief-Constable.html

However, there are two key points to note.

First is an absence.

No reference to Eddie (then unknown outside police circles).

Second is the cited reason for the trip: so that Keela could assist the FBI in two murder enquiries.

The truth would seem to be that Grime was invited over to America to discuss Keela (about whom the Americans wanted to know more).

Months later, Grime's employment with SYP ended ....

[pathfinder73]

Eddie has just returned from the US where he has been helping the FBI in a murder case. August 2006

https://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2006/August2006/News250806/brit.htm

[Mr Gray]

Eddie's trip to America

Specialized K-9 to Aid in Ga. Search todaysthv.com
 
Monika Rued
Updated: 14 September 2007
 
A dog trained to detect tiny bits of blood evidence has been brought to Georgia from the UK to help search for a missing woman.


 
The FBI, the GBI and Walker County, Georgia, Sheriff's investigators have some new and potentially powerful help in solving the seemingly unsolvable disappearance of Theresa Parker, the Walker County 911 dispatcher. A world-renowned police dog and his handler from England just arrived in Georgia.
 
The FBI considers them -- Martin Grime and his 7-year-old, English Springer Spaniel, Eddie -- two of the best in the law enforcement specialty of canine forensics, able to find evidence everyone else missed.
 
"Yes, hopefully we will find Theresa Parker. Yes, we will hopefully find evidence," Grime said at an afternoon news conference with Sheriff Steve Wilson in the Walker County Seat of Lafayette on Thursday afternoon.
 
Eddie's skill and training enable him to find microscopic evidence that others cannot, even when the evidence is hidden, or even when someone has tried to wash it away.
 
"A small amount of forensic evidence," for example, "may be under a board in a house, or under a large boulder, and things like that, where forensic evidence can't normally be recovered from. We'll use the dogs to try and locate it for us," Grime said.
 
Grime and Eddie are in high demand, world wide.
 
Getting them to Walker County from England to help solve Theresa Parker's disappearance is an indication of how high a priority her case is for the FBI, according to one FBI agent close to the case.
 
Eddie is a veteran of more than 200 homicide cases, working with Grime, who has 30 years' of law enforcement and military experience in conducting criminal investigations.
 
No one is officially calling Theresa Parker's case a homicide.
 
Parker disappeared nearly six months ago, on March 21.
 
Investigators in Walker County consider Parker's estranged husband, Sam Parker, to be a person of interest in her disappearance. So that's one line of inquiry they will pursue using Eddie's unique technique.
 
"It focuses on a particular line of inquiry so that we can either say, yes, we found Theresa and we found the guy who's done it or the lady that's done it, or, no," Grime said.
 
Earlier this year, in Portugal, for example, Martin Grime and Eddie were working the case of the missing 4-year-old English girl, Madeleine McCann.
 
And it was Eddie that detected what may have been Madeleine's blood in her parents' rental car.
 
That's one of the reasons investigators now consider Madeleine's parents to be suspects.
 
Grimes said Eddie is "no miracle machine," but the FBI, GBI and Walker County investigators are clearly hoping the team from England can help crack their case, a case that has confounded everyone.
 
This past Sunday, Theresa Parker's family and friends marked her 42nd birthday with prayers, saying they are still confident that investigators are doing all they can.
 
"We still have not given up hope," Sheriff Wilson said Thursday, "and we're still optimistic that she will be found, or that we can find the reason why she disappeared."
 
Sheriff Wilson is not saying how long Martin Grime and Eddie will be in Walker County, but Grime had already been consulting with investigators, long distance, from his home in the UK, before he arrived in Walker County, and will continue to do so after he returns home.

##

This article confirms what I have said for a long time but other posters do not want to accept..Eddie's skill is finding evidence....confirmed by Grime




it is the evidence the dog finds which makes teh dog so useful....unconfirmed alerts have no value

[ferryman]

I think he didn't explain it awfully well.  The dogs could but couldn't communicate it subsequently.

Most dogs can differentiate between substances but they have no way of communicating those differences if they arent trained to do so.  To a dog, searching for a scent is merely a game for which he or she has been trained.  If they aren't trained to report a difference between pigs and humans then they will alert as if they are the same.

If you train a dog to find a dead fish he will find a dead fish, if you train him to find a dead pig he will find a dead pig, if you train him to look for a dead pig and dead humans using human bone he will find either but has no way to tell his handler which is which.  It all comes down to inadequate training on suitable materials. 

If it is still illegal in the UK to use human cadaver material to assist in the proper training of dogs then this needs amending.  We shouldn't be dependent on our American cousins for this resource.

Amending, why?

It is illegal in many (I think, most) States of America to use human remains to train dogs.

And there is a viable alternative that does the job equally well, pig cadavers.

It all boils down to a question of ethics.

One thing is certain (alright, two).  We (in England) would not indulge the expense and hypocrisy of sending to dogs to America to be trained in ways outlawed as unethical (in England).

And especially not on a dog already far advanced in his career (trained on pig cadavers, as per standard ACPO guidelines) and 18 months away from the end of his police-career (as Grime claims for Eddie).

[pathfinder73]

Eddie demonstrated finding cadaver scent in a jail. Some here must think blood could not have been in that jail or he would have alerted to it instead.

"We also saw video played in the courtroom to demonstrate how another dog, Eddie, found a sample pair of pants hidden in the Walker County Jail that was perfumed with a cadaver scent. Eddie is an English Springer Spaniel belonging to Martin Grime, a world-renown forensic K-9 expert based in the United Kingdom."

[mercury]

I have often wondered how you can train a cadaver dog which has been trained to alert to dead pig,  to alert to a human dead body.    How can you say to the dog 'right,  forget the pig now,  you have to alert to dead human instead.'   It's impossible to do that,  it is obvious that the dog is going to alert to both isn't it.

The scent of  dead pig is supposed to be the nearest to the scent of dead humans, thats why they are used in training
If a dog scents a  corpse as trained where a missing human, and not lost pig was last seen, then....well work it out

[mercury]

Acting in my role of advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced pig based products into training assessments 100%! of the animals alerted to the medium.

> The result from scientific experiment and research to date would tend to support the theory that the scent of human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.
That is not to say that this may not be possible in the future.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm


According to Martin Grime, Victim Recovery Dogs trained solely using human remains alert to pig without exception.

So? Did a Pig disappear from 5a? Leave pig dna? Any witnesses?

[Brietta]

So? Did a Pig disappear from 5a? Leave pig dna? Any witnesses?

No idea.
But I'm by no means on my own in being unable to differentiate what scents dogs will 'alert' to ... scientists have been studying what compounds are uniquely human for many years now ... and they haven't quite cracked it yet. 

That makes it all a bit extraordinary that bloggers on fora have determined conclusions which those with access to information gained from scientifically studying many victim recovery dogs over many years are incapable of doing.

Face it Mercury.
To quote a phrase ... the dog's alerts in the apartment have no evidential value whatsoever ... and if that is the best evidence you have in support of your argument, you are holding onto a false premise.


**Snip
If dogs can differentiate between the scent of human decomposition and that of animal decomposition, the VOCs found in animal decomposition should differ from those found in human decomposition enough for the dog to recognize the difference.  Alternatively, the ratios of specific VOCs could allow the dogs to differentiate.  The researchers found that there are, in fact, different VOCs involved in human decomposition and the three species of animals that were used.  Curiously, however, particularly considering the preference for using pigs as substitutes for humans in some forensic procedures, the researchers found that by all measures, the compounds shared by humans and pigs were least similar.

Vass et al. (2008) listed 30 compounds as key markers of human decompositions, of which seven were found in animal samples by Cablk and her colleagues.  These compounds could not be considered human-specific.  The researchers also discussed some compounds that might be found in some people but not others because of environmental factors.  It is also to be noted that while dogs have much more sensitive olfactory systems than we do, there are some chemicals as to which their sensitivity may not be significantly different from ours (Tonosaki and Tucker, 1985).

Future Research

The researchers state that a further study should involve presenting HRD dogs “with human samples and animal samples in a scientific framework to determine if the canines alert on both human and animal scent or demonstrate the ability to differentiate between the two by alerting on human scent only. This information might allow us to eliminate compounds or at least guide in determining what compounds or ratios of compounds might be need to be included in a canine’s training aid.”  Also, instrument detectors being developed may ultimately replace dogs in cadaver searches.
http://doglawreporter-bay-net.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/training-cadaver-dogs-on-pig-remains.html

[mercury]

Youhave a serious choice
thecadaver dog found something he was trained to find in 5a ONLY or he was promted to find in there only

Which is it for you?

I will read your link tomorrow maybe, i have to go