CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Benice]

Keela can alert to blood that forensics cannot find.

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

I'm genuinely curious to know how that can be claimed as a fact when there is absolutely no way of proving it - (shades of The Emperor's New Clothes concept imo).

 IMO it is far more credible to conclude  that when a 'blood dog' alerts and no trace whatsoever of the presence of blood can be detected at that spot - either by the human eye or by forensic testing -  it was a false alert.   

[pathfinder73]

Dogs are tested.

[Benice]

Dogs are tested of course.

In what way are they tested to prove the claim that  ''Keela can alert to blood that forensics cannot find.''?

How can a handler  conduct a test using invisible  blood that cannot be seen by the human eye or even detected forensically?     Where would he get it from and how would know he'd got it - when he had no proof that it existed in the first place?

The claim is untenable IMO.

[Robittybob1]

In what way are they tested to prove the claim that  ''Keela can alert to blood that forensics cannot find.''?

How can a handler  conduct a test using invisible  blood that cannot be seen by the human eye or even detected forensically?     Where would he get it from and how would know he'd got it - when he had no proof that it existed in the first place?

The claim is untenable IMO.

We are dealing with the olfactory organs.  It is incredibly fine tuned in some animals for example there are moths that find each other in the dark using pheromones.  You get to realise they are detecting levels of the chemicals way beyond the ability of laboratories to test it.   

[Benice]

We are dealing with the olfactory organs.  It is incredibly fine tuned in some animals for example there are moths that find each other in the dark using pheromones.  You get to realise they are detecting levels of the chemicals way beyond the ability of laboratories to test it.

Yes - I'm aware of that Rob - but in this instance -  how can a handler prove that an alert to something that cannot be proved to exist -cannot simply be a false alert?    He can't IMO .
AIMHO

Must go out now.

[misty]

We are dealing with the olfactory organs.  It is incredibly fine tuned in some animals for example there are moths that find each other in the dark using pheromones.  You get to realise they are detecting levels of the chemicals way beyond the ability of laboratories to test it.

If the alert cannot be corroborated by forensic tests in a laboratory then the alerts are useless as far as a prosecutor is concerned. If a blood dog indicates there is blood on a knife but it cannot be forensically located or DNA tested by a lab then the dog's alert is worthless.

[Robittybob1]

If the alert cannot be corroborated by forensic tests in a laboratory then the alerts are useless as far as a prosecutor is concerned. If a blood dog indicates there is blood on a knife but it cannot be forensically located or DNA tested by a lab then the dog's alert is worthless.

Maybe not so useful to the prosecutor but what about the investigator.  If I found the dogs alert to blood on a knife in the home of the missing person, you might be wise to start looking for a burial site.  You use it as a clue.

[misty]

Maybe not so useful to the prosecutor but what about the investigator.  If I found the dogs alert to blood on a knife in the home of the missing person, you might be wise to start looking for a burial site.  You use it as a clue.

If you cannot first match the unseen, humanly undetectable blood speck on the knife to the victim then a search for a burial site would be a waste of time. I dare say many homes have knives & other household objects with miniscule traces of dried blood on them but they are not potential crime scenes.

[G-Unit]

If you cannot first match the unseen, humanly undetectable blood speck on the knife to the victim then a search for a burial site would be a waste of time. I dare say many homes have knives & other household objects with miniscule traces of dried blood on them but they are not potential crime scenes.

It's a clue. Given one clue others can be looked for. Get enough and a picture begins to emerge. Like a jigsaw puzzle with no picture provided.

[misty]

It's a clue. Given one clue others can be looked for. Get enough and a picture begins to emerge. Like a jigsaw puzzle with no picture provided.

It's not a clue if it cannot be directly related to a victim or potential victim.
If you haven't already read this, you may find it interesting. http://www.csst.org/box_effect.html

[G-Unit]

It's not a clue if it cannot be directly related to a victim or potential victim.
If you haven't already read this, you may find it interesting. http://www.csst.org/box_effect.html

I think you're referring to evidence, not clues. A killer may cry crocodile tears. That's not evidence, but it's a clue.

That article has more to say about human error than dog error.

[Robittybob1]

If you cannot first match the unseen, humanly undetectable blood speck on the knife to the victim then a search for a burial site would be a waste of time. I dare say many homes have knives & other household objects with miniscule traces of dried blood on them but they are not potential crime scenes.

There will be clues and red herrings as they say. 
Red herring is a false trail.

[G-Unit]

There will be clues and red herrings as they say. 
Red herring is a false trail.

Have you identified any red herrings Rob?

[Robittybob1]

Have you identified any red herrings Rob?

we were talking hypothetically about alerts.

[G-Unit]

we were talking hypothetically about alerts.

So you think the alerts by the dogs are red herrings? In my opinion they would be viewed very differently by some had they happened in locations unconnected with the McCanns.