Was it in fact blood from a shaving cut that the dogs detected?

[Carana]

8-)(--) The videos that she loves so much yet refused to come back here to defend them.

One or more people spent quite a lot of time pointing out the errors in her videos. Gilet was one, from memory. For some reason, I can't find those posts. Have they been whooshed? If so, why?

[Redblossom]

Grimes has a machine that he claims can do this.

Does he? i dont think so

Anyway from Mr Grime's personal profile


Scientists accept that there is no forensic testing equipment as discriminatory as the dogs olfactory system at this present moment in time.

Allresearch and training of the dogs within this program is completed in conjunction with a team of scientists for differing fields of expertise.
 
They have in the past and will continue to endorse the dogs uses
within the field of homicide investigations.

[faithlilly]

I am not that interested in the dogs- I dismissed them for scientific and formal reasons years ago.

What I am saying is that there is no logical syllogism that supports your statement "Both Eddie and Keela alert to blood from a living presence however when Keela doesn't alert and Eddie does, as in the bedroom, the only reasonable explanation is that he  has detected the scent of cadaver."

I think you'll find that's my quote.

[AnneGuedes]

Grimes has a machine that he claims can do this.

It's a US device.
http://www.pmsmicro.com/forensicscienceschapter_4d.pdf

[AnneGuedes]

Perhaps someone could inform Hideho that there were no blood splatters on the wall... She doesn't seem to have integrated this fact 6 years on, yet promotes it as such in one or more of her "factual" videos.

Don't do your Gerald McCann, Carana, don't wait till someone tells it for you, tell her yourself !

[AnneGuedes]

Cadaverine scent originates from many other substances other than a cadaver.  Thus to introduce the notion that the only reasonable explanation as to why the dogs alerted was because they detected a body is wholly incorrect.

John, you surely mean "cadaver scent" and not cadaverine, which is only one of an enormous amount of components and doesn't develop immediately.
Eddie, an air sniffer dog (as opposed to a tracker one, nose on the ground), detected the presence of cadaver scent as soon as the door was open. This is the most remarkable fact in the dog operation.

[Redblossom]

John, you surely mean "cadaver scent" and not cadaverine, which is only one of an enormous amount of components and doesn't develop immediately.
Eddie, an air sniffer dog (as opposed to a tracker one, nose on the ground), detected the presence of cadaver scent as soon as the door was open. This is the most remarkable fact in the dog operation.

indeed, he normally waits and sits quietly to be told by the handler to go and search, in this instance, the  smell must have been strong, to Eddie,  even from outside the front door for him wanting to get off his leesh asap...those dogs noses, invaluable

[John]

John, you surely mean "cadaver scent" and not cadaverine, which is only one of an enormous amount of components and doesn't develop immediately.
Eddie, an air sniffer dog (as opposed to a tracker one, nose on the ground), detected the presence of cadaver scent as soon as the door was open. This is the most remarkable fact in the dog operation.

No I mean cadaverine, the foul smelling compound produced during the putrefaction of decaying flesh.  A cadaver on the other hand is a corpse.  I  might not have phrased my original post too well.

A trained dog detecting cadaverine does not necessarily mean it has found the remains of a cadaver.  That is why Mr Grime was very quick to point out that the dogs are not infallible and should not be relied upon in the absence of forensic evidence.

[sadie]

No I mean cadaverine, the foul smelling compound produced during the putrefaction of decaying flesh.  A cadaver on the other hand is a corpse.  I  might not have phrased my original post too well.

A trained dog detecting cadaverine does not necessarily mean it has found the remains of a cadaver.  That is why Mr Grime was very quick to point out that the dogs are not infallible and should not be relied upon in the absence of forensic evidence.

Thank you John for clearing that up.

[Redblossom]

No I mean cadaverine, the foul smelling compound produced during the putrefaction of decaying flesh.  A cadaver on the other hand is a corpse.  I  might not have phrased my original post too well.

A trained dog detecting cadaverine does not necessarily mean it has found the remains of a cadaver.  That is why Mr Grime was very quick to point out that the dogs are not infallible and should not be relied upon in the absence of forensic evidence.

But there is no such thng as forensic evidence for a cadaver dog alerting to remnant dead body scent

The only  back up in general  is the blood dog being sent in after the cadaver dog has alerted and  finding blood which matches the victim....people can die without shedding blood though

dogs abilities are way beyond what science can match, and prove, mr grimes provisos are the best that can be offered


complicated subject nite