Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Brietta]

Most dogs, like people, take food in their mouths in order to eat it. They're unlikely to take non-food items in their mouths for the same reason. In my opinion that's more likely to be connected to the dog's vomeronasal organ.
https://www.dailydogdiscoveries.com/dogs-vomeronasal-organ/

Perhaps you should endeavour to read cites prior to posting ... but enough diversion ... let's return to the topic.

Evidence!  Misunderstanding of which causes so much ... misunderstanding.  We have all read about Eddie's prowess and his training regime and whether he used his vomeronasal-organ when working at his day job will forever remain a mystery but since it is part of the anatomy of the dog nose I imagine not.

Perhaps you can provide a cite which says Eddie's trained response when working in the field included picking up waste food from a kitchen bin? and running around with potential evidence in his mouth ... then you might have ammunition to give weight to your argument.
Otherwise in my opinion you are either playing games or waffling.

[slartibartfast]

Perhaps you should endeavour to read cites prior to posting ... but enough diversion ... let's return to the topic.

Evidence!  Misunderstanding of which causes so much ... misunderstanding.  We have all read about Eddie's prowess and his training regime and whether he used his vomeronasal-organ when working at his day job will forever remain a mystery but since it is part of the anatomy of the dog nose I imagine not.

Perhaps you can provide a cite which says Eddie's trained response when working in the field included picking up waste food from a kitchen bin? and running around with potential evidence in his mouth ... then you might have ammunition to give weight to your argument.
Otherwise in my opinion you are either playing games or waffling.

I think it is safe to say you aren’t a forensic dog handler or trainer so we are on fairly solid ground in assuming your attempt at casting doubt on the dogs is not based on knowledge.

[Angelo222]

As I've said before it would be extremely  unprofessional of Grime to share information Re, an on-going case... And you have repeated his supposed opinion... I find the whole thing unrealistic... I think you've been had

I don't think so.  Even Kate McCann accepted the dog alerts to the extent she had to address them. Gerry on the other hand attempted to dismiss them which sort of speaks for itself imo.

[Brietta]

I think it is safe to say you aren’t a forensic dog handler or trainer so we are on fairly solid ground in assuming your attempt at casting doubt on the dogs is not based on knowledge.

It isn't really safe for you to make any assumption about any other member is it?

Maybe you think it is normal for a working dog who we are told apparently does not become distracted by food to be seen becoming distracted by food.  One doesn't really require to be much of a dog expert to find that a bit extraordinary does one?

[Alice Purjorick]

It isn't really safe for you to make any assumption about any other member is it?

Maybe you think it is normal for a working dog who we are told apparently does not become distracted by food to be seen becoming distracted by food.  One doesn't really require to be much of a dog expert to find that a bit extraordinary does one?

Which comment drops you neatly back into square one. If you know nothing about the subject you are in no position to make any sensible contribution whatever.

[misty]

I previously posted about this on the dog poll thread, but for those who haven't read it I'll leave you to decide whether the dog or handler was the weak link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Preston_(dog_handler)

John Preston (died 2008)[1] was a dog handler and former state trooper from Pennsylvania[2] who testified for the prosecution in criminal cases across the country in the early 1980s.[3] Preston claimed that his dog (named Harass II[4] or Harrass 2[5]) could perform feats of forensic detection far beyond the abilities of other investigative dogs.[3]

As an expert, Preston was paid $300 per day; in his previous job as a Pennsylvania state trooper, he was paid $20,000 per year.[1] Brevard County, Florida, paid Preston $37,429 in the first half of 1984 alone.[1]
Claimed abilities of his dog
Preston claimed that his dog could smell human traces years or months after a suspect walked over the ground,[6] on heavily trafficked streets,[1] or both.[7] He claimed that his dog could smell underwater, and, in a case against a man who was eventually freed on DNA evidence, Preston claimed that his dog could track a human scent even after hurricanes.[8] Tracking dog experts say these feats are impossible.[7][8]

Preston's dog would sometimes urinate on the evidence while Preston claimed it was working.

Repudiated testimony
Preston's testimony was repudiated by the Kings County District Attorney in New York and the Arizona Supreme Court, who called him a "charlatan".[1][3] A U.S. Postal Service investigation in 1983 claimed Preston led Harass II to the results requested by investigators, which Preston requested before using the dog.[1]

When tested by Judge Gilbert Goshorn during a 1984 trial in Brevard, Florida, Harass II failed to track a scent much simpler, fresher, and shorter in length than those it supposedly tracked in other cases.[2][4][8] Goshorn offered Preston another chance at the test the next day, but Preston left town instead.[1][2] He did not return to Brevard to testify again.[1]

In a 2008 affidavit, Goshorn said:[1]

It is my belief that the only way Preston could achieve the results he achieved in numerous other cases was having obtained information about the case prior to the scent tracking so that Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or evidence in question. I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about a case.

Sam Bardwell, a former prosecutor in Brevard County, Florida in the 1980s who used Preston as a witness in a rape case, has claimed that "John Preston was a total fraud, and everyone knew it."[1] Karen Brandon, who worked in the same office at the same time, denied that anyone knew this.[1]

Preston testified falsely at least twice about his certification as a tracking expert.[9] Preston was never charged with any crime.

Effect and fallout
Preston helped convict at least two men who were eventually freed by DNA evidence.[4] Each spent more than twenty years in prison.[2] One, Bill Dillon, was not informed of the repudiation of Preston's testimony until 2006.[8] The state of Florida had launched no investigation into Preston's cases.[8]

The Brevard/Seminole State Attorney claimed that it would not be possible to discover which cases Preston testified in.[4] Later, he announced that he would "re-review" those cases, but that the cases had already been reviewed in 2004.[2][11] The 2004 review did not flag the case of Bill Dillon, who was later freed on DNA evidence contradicting Preston's testimony.[11] In 2009, J. Preston Silvernail, chief judge of Florida's 18th judicial circuit, declined to call a grand jury to investigate the Florida State Attorney's Office's hiring of Preston.[12]

Preston testified as an expert witness at dozens of criminal trials in Florida.[13] The Innocence Project of Florida believes that as many as 60 people may have been convicted based partially or solely upon Preston's testimony. Florida Today found 15 cases in which Preston testified.[1][6]

Across the country, Preston's testimony resulted in over 100 criminal convictions.
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Brietta]

Which comment drops you neatly back into square one. If you know nothing about the subject you are in no position to make any sensible contribution whatever.

Were that rule of yours to be observed across the board ... the potential for a benign and happy social media scene would be immense ... as very few would be able to meet the criteria.  Possibly not even you ;)

[Angelo222]

I previously posted about this on the dog poll thread, but for those who haven't read it I'll leave you to decide whether the dog or handler was the weak link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Preston_(dog_handler)

John Preston (died 2008)[1] was a dog handler and former state trooper from Pennsylvania[2] who testified for the prosecution in criminal cases across the country in the early 1980s.[3] Preston claimed that his dog (named Harass II[4] or Harrass 2[5]) could perform feats of forensic detection far beyond the abilities of other investigative dogs.[3]

As an expert, Preston was paid $300 per day; in his previous job as a Pennsylvania state trooper, he was paid $20,000 per year.[1] Brevard County, Florida, paid Preston $37,429 in the first half of 1984 alone.[1]
Claimed abilities of his dog
Preston claimed that his dog could smell human traces years or months after a suspect walked over the ground,[6] on heavily trafficked streets,[1] or both.[7] He claimed that his dog could smell underwater, and, in a case against a man who was eventually freed on DNA evidence, Preston claimed that his dog could track a human scent even after hurricanes.[8] Tracking dog experts say these feats are impossible.[7][8]

Preston's dog would sometimes urinate on the evidence while Preston claimed it was working.

Repudiated testimony
Preston's testimony was repudiated by the Kings County District Attorney in New York and the Arizona Supreme Court, who called him a "charlatan".[1][3] A U.S. Postal Service investigation in 1983 claimed Preston led Harass II to the results requested by investigators, which Preston requested before using the dog.[1]

When tested by Judge Gilbert Goshorn during a 1984 trial in Brevard, Florida, Harass II failed to track a scent much simpler, fresher, and shorter in length than those it supposedly tracked in other cases.[2][4][8] Goshorn offered Preston another chance at the test the next day, but Preston left town instead.[1][2] He did not return to Brevard to testify again.[1]

In a 2008 affidavit, Goshorn said:[1]

It is my belief that the only way Preston could achieve the results he achieved in numerous other cases was having obtained information about the case prior to the scent tracking so that Preston could lead the dog to the suspect or evidence in question. I believe that Preston was regularly retained to confirm the state's preconceived notions about a case.

Sam Bardwell, a former prosecutor in Brevard County, Florida in the 1980s who used Preston as a witness in a rape case, has claimed that "John Preston was a total fraud, and everyone knew it."[1] Karen Brandon, who worked in the same office at the same time, denied that anyone knew this.[1]

Preston testified falsely at least twice about his certification as a tracking expert.[9] Preston was never charged with any crime.

Effect and fallout
Preston helped convict at least two men who were eventually freed by DNA evidence.[4] Each spent more than twenty years in prison.[2] One, Bill Dillon, was not informed of the repudiation of Preston's testimony until 2006.[8] The state of Florida had launched no investigation into Preston's cases.[8]

The Brevard/Seminole State Attorney claimed that it would not be possible to discover which cases Preston testified in.[4] Later, he announced that he would "re-review" those cases, but that the cases had already been reviewed in 2004.[2][11] The 2004 review did not flag the case of Bill Dillon, who was later freed on DNA evidence contradicting Preston's testimony.[11] In 2009, J. Preston Silvernail, chief judge of Florida's 18th judicial circuit, declined to call a grand jury to investigate the Florida State Attorney's Office's hiring of Preston.[12]

Preston testified as an expert witness at dozens of criminal trials in Florida.[13] The Innocence Project of Florida believes that as many as 60 people may have been convicted based partially or solely upon Preston's testimony. Florida Today found 15 cases in which Preston testified.[1][6]

Across the country, Preston's testimony resulted in over 100 criminal convictions.
                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are rogues in every profession, even police officers and doctors and that is why we have corroboration before charging anyone with a crime when confronted by scent dog indications.

[G-Unit]

Perhaps you should endeavour to read cites prior to posting ... but enough diversion ... let's return to the topic.

Evidence!  Misunderstanding of which causes so much ... misunderstanding.  We have all read about Eddie's prowess and his training regime and whether he used his vomeronasal-organ when working at his day job will forever remain a mystery but since it is part of the anatomy of the dog nose I imagine not.

Perhaps you can provide a cite which says Eddie's trained response when working in the field included picking up waste food from a kitchen bin? and running around with potential evidence in his mouth ... then you might have ammunition to give weight to your argument.
Otherwise in my opinion you are either playing games or waffling.

I haven't a clue what you mean about reading cites, please explain.

Is there evidence that Eddie was forbidden to use his mouth?  I'm afraid I haven't seen that, so I would appreciate a cite please.

The vomeronasal organ is also connected to the mouth.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I haven't a clue what you mean about reading cites, please explain.

Is there evidence that Eddie was forbidden to use his mouth?  I'm afraid I haven't seen that, so I would appreciate a cite please.

The vomeronasal organ is also connected to the mouth.

Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth?  Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence.  Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?

[Robittybob1]

Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth?  Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence.  Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?

That concern seems a valid point but it hasn't been raised before AFAIK.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That concern seems a valid point but it hasn't been raised before AFAIK.

Perhaps the dogs are thoroughly decontaminated after every search, put through a sheep dip for dogs and their teeth brushed and noses scrubbed? 

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps the dogs are thoroughly decontaminated after every search, put through a sheep dip for dogs and their teeth brushed and noses scrubbed?

I would imagine  the cadaver dog trainers are keen not to give their dog bad experiences after using their dogs.  In my experience dogs could be upset by the procedures you describe.

[G-Unit]

Does it not stand to reason that a dog trained to look for evidence in a crime scene should also be trained not to pick up (and contaminate) potential evidence in his mouth?  Say Eddie had previously been rootling around some old cadaver, and then snuffled his way around a crime scene looking for evidence.  Any risk of cross contamination there, in your opinion?

As this thread is about evidence perhaps you could provide some rather than basing your opinion on what seems reasonable and logical to you.

[Robittybob1]

As this thread is about evidence perhaps you could provide some rather than basing your opinion on what seems reasonable and logical to you.

The issue raised by Vertigo Swirl could be raised against the evidence of the dogs by the defence team.  If raised it could cast an element of doubt on their findings.