Kate and Gerry have both publicly contested the cadaver alerts?

[Mr Gray]

Daily verification test.  If MG put out a sample  and Eddie didn't find it then he'd need more training and play if he got it right.   I can't see what is wrong with that.

Then you are not a scientist

[slartibartfast]

Then you are not a scientist

I think you are confusing the science to show the effectiveness and the ongoing quality control of the process.

[barrier]

Then you are not a scientist

Is it a prerequisite to be one to post  anonymously on a  forum discussing something that happened nigh on 11 yrs ago?

[jassi]

Is it a prerequisite to be one to post  anonymously on a  forum discussing something that happened nigh on 11 yrs ago?

It certainly helps if you have at least a BSc in bulls**t detection.

[Robittybob1]

Then you are not a scientist

Do you think the daily training of Eddie and Keela was a waste of time?

[Mr Gray]

Do you think the daily training of Eddie and Keela was a waste of time?

If you understand eddies, role it's not a, waste of time.. But most here, don't understand, eddies role and, what he, is, trained, for

[Robittybob1]

If you understand eddies, role it's not a, waste of time.. But most here, don't understand, eddies role and, what he, is, trained, for

Was MG doing his training wrong?    The one thing that concerned me if Martin did the setting up of the training exercise Eddie could have been tracking where Martin walked till he found the cadaver sample along the route.  I think someone else needed to set up the sample to find at times.

[barrier]

Was MG doing his training wrong?   

He took his dogs to the USA,for additional traing is it being suggested that the FBI are wrong and posters here are right.

He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject.

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

[byron]

GRIME

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. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive 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.

[Robittybob1]

GRIME

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. (The products were obtained from whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive 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.

I have a feeling that pork properly processed can be distinguished from "whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption"  So no reaction to ham or crackling, bacon sandwiches - all that is not alerted to IMO.

[Carana]

I have a feeling that pork properly processed can be distinguished from "whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption"  So no reaction to ham or crackling, bacon sandwiches - all that is not alerted to IMO.

Could you clarify where he stated that entire phrase in bold to the PJ?

[byron]

human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train' the dog to distinguish between the two.

So training dogs only on human decomposing material has no advantage

[barrier]

Could you clarify where he stated that entire phrase in bold to the PJ?

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. (The products were obtained from whole piglet
cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from
scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive 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.

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
still born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.

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

[Mr Gray]

I think you are confusing the science to show the effectiveness and the ongoing quality control of the process.

I'm confusing nothing... The dogs testing is not to scientific  standards and that's part of the reason no inference can be drawn from the alerts. It doesn't really matter because the dogs real value is in finding actual evidence that can be used in court

[misty]

I have a feeling that pork properly processed can be distinguished from "whole piglet cadaver not processed food for human consumption"  So no reaction to ham or crackling, bacon sandwiches - all that is not alerted to IMO.

So how do you explain this?

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

snipped

In training the dog has accurately alerted to a 1 cm cube of pork soaked in

petrol for 1 week and then burnt until only a residue remains.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific reference to pork, the flesh of a pig.