Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[sadie]

And?

In my role as 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 decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Thank you Gunit.   You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.


I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires


Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies. 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf

http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/

According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent. 
On pigs that would be the pork crackling.  Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO

Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to. 

Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves. 
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?

Interesting !

AIMO, of course

[John]

Thank you Gunit.   You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.


I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires


Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies. 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf

http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/

According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent. 
On pigs that would be the pork crackling.  Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO

Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to. 

Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves. 
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?

Interesting !

AIMO, of course

Always remembering that scent dogs are trained to find many different things.  If a dog is trained to find A, B and C he will do so and ignore D, E and F.

[slartibartfast]

Thank you Gunit.   You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.


I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires


Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies. 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf

http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/

According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent. 
On pigs that would be the pork crackling.  Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO

Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to. 

Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves. 
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?

Interesting !

AIMO, of course

Why do you keep pushing these myths. We do not get crackling from decaying charred whole pigs.

[G-Unit]

Thank you Gunit.   You have just showed that a cadaver dog will alert to pig cadaver odour, especially a dog trained on piglet corpses, as Eddie was.


I have been looking for evidence that cadaver dogs are also able to alerrt to burnt flesh and came across these references to Cadaver dogs being used to find corpses in the Californian forest fires


Seems the police in California have proved that Cadaver dogs alert to badly burned bodies. 

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171015182721AA4kLJf

http://www.sfexaminer.com/death-toll-in-california-fires-jumps-as-two-more-bodies-found/

According to some, it is mainly the burnt body fat that holds the scent. 
On pigs that would be the pork crackling.  Eddie trained on piglets, so he would alert to anything contaminated by the smell of pork crackling IMO

Someone having eaten pork crackling could have contaminated Cuddlecat that Eddie (only maybe) alerted to. 

Personally I think that Eddie alerted not to Cuddlecat but to a piesce of paper on top of a pile of folders .... or maybe to the folders themselves. 
Who put the piece of paper/ folders there?

Interesting !

AIMO, of course

You think you've spotted a flaw in the training and use of cadaver dogs which has gone completely unnoticed by the expert who work with them? I very much doubt that.

Grime said Eddie alerted only to cuddle cat at the villa. He trained and handled the dog. Are you qualified to contradict him? Not as far as I know.

[Mr Gray]

You think you've spotted a flaw in the training and use of cadaver dogs which has gone completely unnoticed by the expert who work with them? I very much doubt that.

Grime said Eddie alerted only to cuddle cat at the villa. He trained and handled the dog. Are you qualified to contradict him? Not as far as I know.

You need to understand  that it is perfectly valid for a lay person to criticise a professional...
The claimed alert to cuddle cat shows how vague the alerts can be... Imo

[Carana]

You mean there was no manual or criteria on which ACPO tested dogs prior to 2011?

From the Shannon debrief:

Issues for National Consideration
Victim Recovery Dogs
The victim recovery dogs used in this operation were drawn from four different forces. It emerged that each force has its own training and deployment policy and so there is no consistency in what the dogs can do and how it is done. Furthermore, there is no national standard for accrediting dogs and handlers, or record keeping of the success rate they achieve. This makes it difficult for SIOs to interpret the indication that
a dog gives in any given situation and may lead
to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place. ACPO is currently examining this issue due to a number of recent cases where the use of victim recovery dogs has had the potential to cause complications in an enquiry.

The properties that the dogs searched contained a high level of second-hand furniture bought from dwellings where someone had died. This resulted in numerous indications that required further investigation to confirm whether they were connected to the investigation, or to previous owners of the furniture.

The value of these dogs is undoubted, but there is an urgent need to have national policy on their training, accreditation and deployment and better information for SIOs about their use. The NPIA is currently working with the ACPO Strategic Dogs Working Group to resolve these issues.

http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

[G-Unit]

Interesting;

may lead
to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.

[Mr Gray]

Interesting;

may lead
to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.

No way of knowing how reliable that indication was... Interesting

[Brietta]

Interesting;

may lead
to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.

If they hadn't followed up on the indications in Shannon's case there would have been nothing to explain that it was contact with second hand furniture which had caused the dogs to indicate in the first instance.

Follow up = no mystery
No follow up = mystery

[Carana]

Interesting;

may lead
to the expenditure of large resources in following up an indication from a dog with no way of knowing how reliable that indication was in the first place.
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Operation-Paris.pdf

The police do follow up 'indications' then, sometimes using 'large resources'.

Well the UK did in the Shannon case and eventually realised that it was due to some piece of second-hand furniture.

The PJ did ask around if anyone was aware of someone dying in the flat, but there's no indication that they'd tried to check out other possibilities, such as where the furniture had come from, or whether a previous occupant had kept the ashes of a loved one, or whatever else.

[faithlilly]

If they hadn't followed up on the indications in Shannon's case there would have been nothing to explain that it was contact with second hand furniture which had caused the dogs to indicate in the first instance.

Follow up = no mystery
No follow up = mystery

But surely that’s the police’s job ?

[G-Unit]

If they hadn't followed up on the indications in Shannon's case there would have been nothing to explain that it was contact with second hand furniture which had caused the dogs to indicate in the first instance.

Follow up = no mystery
No follow up = mystery

The dogs alerted but there was no body in place. They were, therefore, unconfirmed. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be placed on unconfirmed alerts, apparently. In this case they acted on them, however. That suggests to me that they weren't seen as of no interest.

[Brietta]

The dogs alerted but there was no body in place. They were, therefore, unconfirmed. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be placed on unconfirmed alerts, apparently. In this case they acted on them, however. That suggests to me that they weren't seen as of no interest.

No interpretation was given to the dogs' reactions.

The reason for them was investigated and a solution for them was found ... which was very obviously the correct one ... for the simple reason that thankfully, Shannon was proved to be very much alive.

[G-Unit]

No interpretation was given to the dogs' reactions.

The reason for them was investigated and a solution for them was found ... which was very obviously the correct one ... for the simple reason that thankfully, Shannon was proved to be very much alive.

So alerts do need to be investigated. That's what I thought.

[slartibartfast]

So alerts do need to be investigated. That's what I thought.

I think some confuse “not to be relied on” with unimportant.