Author Topic: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?  (Read 166180 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #885 on: June 14, 2020, 10:22:20 AM »
Its not what I mean..its what Grime means..its in the files with the statements  he gave to the PJ. As ive said if you are going to continually bang on about the alerts you could at least read and undersatnd what Grime says...as you are having to ask me...its clear you havent

And what does Grime mean when he says "all blood is not dried in situ"?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #886 on: June 14, 2020, 10:25:38 AM »
And what does Grime mean when he says "all blood is not dried in situ"?
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #887 on: June 14, 2020, 10:36:03 AM »
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.

I have read and re-read what he said. If blood is "diluted" with rain (or as Grime says . chemical cleaning materials) Grime doesn't say Eddie would alert to "diluted" blood but Keela would not. Unless I'm not reading the same statement you are:


......"How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary
.".....

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #888 on: June 14, 2020, 10:39:54 AM »
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.

Blood cells are either there or not. The remnant scent in question is cadaver odour (which isn't the same chemically as blood (from a living person) diluted by rain or chemical cleaning.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #889 on: June 14, 2020, 10:40:09 AM »
I have read and re-read what he said. If blood is "diluted" with rain (or as Grime says . chemical cleaning materials) Grime doesn't say Eddie would alert to "diluted" blood but Keela would not. Unless I'm not reading the same statement you are:


......"How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary
.".....

Have you not read all the information re the dogs Grime contributed to the files..grime says exactly what ive said



Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #890 on: June 14, 2020, 10:41:04 AM »
Blood cells are either there or not. The remnant scent in question is cadaver odour (which isn't the same chemically as blood (from a living person) diluted by rain or chemical cleaning.

No it isnt...not according Grime

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #891 on: June 14, 2020, 10:43:25 AM »
Have you not read all the information re the dogs Grime contributed to the files..grime says exactly what ive said

I can't find him saying "all blood is not dried in situ" anywhere, sorry.

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #892 on: June 14, 2020, 10:45:29 AM »
No it isnt...not according Grime

It would be easier if you just linked the bit of his report(s) you are referring to. Or quote his exact words so I can find it myself.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #893 on: June 14, 2020, 10:47:10 AM »
It would be easier if you just linked the bit of his report(s) you are referring to. Or quote his exact words so I can find it myself.

im just pointing out there are gaps in your knowledge and that of pathfinder...from his profile supplied to the PJ...

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide

intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #894 on: June 14, 2020, 10:55:00 AM »
im just pointing out there are gaps in your knowledge and that of pathfinder...from his profile supplied to the PJ...

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide

intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime


Yes I accept all that. So are you suggesting that all Eddie's alerts were to blood cells? It's possible certainly.

Thanks so much for posting the relevant section, btw.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #895 on: June 14, 2020, 10:57:51 AM »
Yes I accept all that. So are you suggesting that all Eddie's alerts were to blood cells? It's possible certainly.

Thanks so much for posting the relevant section, btw.

what im suggesting is we dont know....thats just one more uncertainty into the mix

Offline Billy Whizz Fan Club

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #896 on: June 14, 2020, 11:35:49 AM »
what im suggesting is we dont know....thats just one more uncertainty into the mix

I agree with you on that. I don't agree with people who pass the alerts off as "the dogs yap all over the place". We need more than the alerts and swab 3a being re-analysed to get anywhere near to a more certain conclusion.

I'm beginning to doubt we'll ever have a conclusion in this case.

Offline pathfinder73

Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Mr Gray


Offline pathfinder73

Re: Dog Alerts- Evidence or not?
« Reply #899 on: June 14, 2020, 08:39:31 PM »
What contradiction?
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.