Dog alerts indicating Cadaver Odor

[Redblossom]

Only ifyou do not understand how truth is based on forensic or scientific methods.

*****

DB

What is sweeping is saying that truth is only truth if proven scientifically or forensically. There are things forensics and science cannot prove but which are true. Ie the lingering scent of the hundredsof molecules that make up cadaver odour. if such an instrument exists to do this I have never heard about it.  Truth of anything as provable on a court of law is different.

Such thoughts are not knowledge, but are unsupported belief.

Knowledge is defined as true belief supported by evidence. You have produced no evidence, merely stated a belief without any supporting evidence.

Ok so the goalposts are now moved to include *knowledge*

Not doing a thesis on philosophy are you?

Whatever you say you cannot square the circle here. This issue will never go away until it has been satisfactorily explained, and this far, that has not happened otherwise people wouldnt labour any point at all about it.

[debunker]

I noticed a difference in time spent on the other apartments too.

In 5a Eddie was made to smell almost every inch of the floor by the wardrobe, called back to smell the furniture etc.

In the other apartments it seemed to me as if it was a quick search.   

Eddie was very interested in smelling behind I believe a cupboard in one of the other apartments?   Although the furniture was pulled out I didn't see Mr. Grime spending the length of time going over the floor as he had in 5a.

The same in the bedroom of the other apartments.   Eddie was smelling something under the bed in one of them and Mr. Grime calls him away actually telling him 'no'.   Mr. Grime didn't pull the bed out and have Eddie smell all over the floor of the bedroom.

We must remember too that 5a had been rented out to I think three other families, before Eddie and Keela were called in.

This is true, and better said than I could.  Mr. Grime did most definitely spend much more time with the dogs on all things McCann.

This is true, but why ? Because he knew about a subliminal doubt concerning the McCanns and had been asked to be very careful and leave no room to chance ? Or because he knew his dog had found something or nothing minutes after the door was open ?

Which is as good a definition of unconscious cuing as you need.

[Redblossom]

It's interesting to make a comparison of how much time was spent in all the other apartments and how much time was spent in the places Madeleine was known to have been -- as well as those places Madeleine was known not to have been but the McCanns were known to have been (if you follow the distinction) ...

It's not as simple as that. If the dog showed interest and his behaviour changed,more time would be spent to find the source of the interest. This did not happen in the other apartments, nor the Mccanns villa for that matter. Mr Grime's video commentary says where there was interest and where there wasn't.

You are assuming that with no proof.

You obviously have not watched the whole dog video then, I assume nothing.

You are assuming plenty. I am assuming nothing.

It is reasonable to assume and it is logical too, that when Mr Grime  says his dog is showing interest, as in the odour he has been trained on is in a certain place, the handler has to find the source, howver long it takes. if the dog shows *no interest* then he will wait until it does or abandon that search

[Carana]

Ah, yes.

The definitive proof (in that report somewhere) that Eddie alerted to a coconut shell ...

How does a test in an Oxford lab on the find revealing the presence of collagen make it definitely a coconut? Collagen is only found in mammals.

I don't know what page you are on in that report. Keep reading...


In case this is of any interest, it seems to be the anthropologist who was mistaken, not Grime, if ever that helps.

[debunker]

Some excellent points there Icabodcrane.

@Carana, do you have a link to Martin Grime's Jersey report? TIA

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

Would you  like a link to the independent inquiry as well?

Why, is that site not independent? Yes please.

Even if true, it doesn't really change much does it? Either the Mccanns were extremely unlucky and the dog alerted to all sorts of innocent materials only in and outside their flat from where Madeleine disappeared, and nowhere else, what are the odds of that? or there is more to it.

The ods are quite high that such errors would occur.

Really? The odds are that in a search of 17 places, the dogs would make errors in the one place from where a child went missing but not in the other 16?

The odds are that at least one alert in ten will be false. Where those false alerts occur is random. Remember that Eddie alerts to blood. I think only three joint alerts of Eddie and Keela suggested cadaver odor.  Such joint alerts have an error of the two error rates multiplied together- 2 errors in 10 alerts.

[debunker]

Eddie alerts to dried blood ( whether from a living or dead person) AND/OR cadaver odor. Source: Mr Grime in the PJ files.

So you are saying that the sand containing the scent of a hundred year old cadaver was found by Eddie because he was sniffing blood?
 >@@(*&)

NO

Dogs make simple errors at least 1 alert in 10.

Ok, so you are asking me to believe that Mr Grime hid a bottle of corpse contaminated sand in the rocks on the beach while he kept his dog in its cage a far distance away and when the dog found that scent after travesing a wide area of that beach it could have been an error? That he alerted to the cadaver scent hidden there? I thinkyou are pushing it, don't you?
 

Eddie on average will make a straightforward error at least one time in ten.

[Eleanor]

I noticed a difference in time spent on the other apartments too.

In 5a Eddie was made to smell almost every inch of the floor by the wardrobe, called back to smell the furniture etc.

In the other apartments it seemed to me as if it was a quick search.   

Eddie was very interested in smelling behind I believe a cupboard in one of the other apartments?   Although the furniture was pulled out I didn't see Mr. Grime spending the length of time going over the floor as he had in 5a.

The same in the bedroom of the other apartments.   Eddie was smelling something under the bed in one of them and Mr. Grime calls him away actually telling him 'no'.   Mr. Grime didn't pull the bed out and have Eddie smell all over the floor of the bedroom.

We must remember too that 5a had been rented out to I think three other families, before Eddie and Keela were called in.

This is true, and better said than I could.  Mr. Grime did most definitely spend much more time with the dogs on all things McCann.

This is true, but why ? Because he knew about a subliminal doubt concerning the McCanns and had been asked to be very careful and leave no room to chance ? Or because he knew his dog had found something or nothing minutes after the door was open ?

He knew which was The McCann's appartment and which was The McCann's car, and he knew that Amaral had doubts.  There isn't necessarily anything wrong about this, but time should have been more evenly spent elsewhere.

The blood found wasn't Madeleines, so what are the chances that no blood was spilled in other appartments?

The whole thing was wrong in the way in which it was gone about, and nothing found could ever have been used in a Court.

In fact, the only person who benefited was Martin Grime himself.

[Redblossom]

Some excellent points there Icabodcrane.

@Carana, do you have a link to Martin Grime's Jersey report? TIA

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

Would you  like a link to the independent inquiry as well?

Why, is that site not independent? Yes please.

Even if true, it doesn't really change much does it? Either the Mccanns were extremely unlucky and the dog alerted to all sorts of innocent materials only in and outside their flat from where Madeleine disappeared, and nowhere else, what are the odds of that? or there is more to it.

The ods are quite high that such errors would occur.

Really? The odds are that in a search of 17 places, the dogs would make errors in the one place from where a child went missing but not in the other 16?

The odds are that at least one alert in ten will be false. Where those false alerts occur is random. Remember that Eddie alerts to blood. I think only three joint alerts of Eddie and Keela suggested cadaver odor.  Such joint alerts have an error of the two error rates multiplied together- 2 errors in 10 alerts.

which leaves 8 alerts not in error? in flat 5a. Which constitutes alot of positive alerts in one place out of 17.
 >@@(*&)
 

[debunker]

Mr Grime does NOT say that Eddie had never made a false positive.

If you assert that, please provide a cite.

This belief is an unsupported myth.

Over to you.....

Think a bit.
How can MG affirm that Eddie never made a false positive ? Obviously only in the cases where forensic material was found at the alert point.
How can he affirm that it had happened Eddie giving a false negative ? Obviously only in the cases where forensic material was found at the non alert point.
In the case of an alert without forensic material, obviously it's impossible to affirm whether Eddie was right or false. That's what MG kept saying.

Exactly. Where no supporting evidence is found it is either a false alert or an alert without physical trace- all we can say is that no supporting evidence is produced by the alert because it could be a simple error on the part of the dog and handler.

In the case of a dog who never made a false positive in the conditions mentioned above, one at least should certainly wonder when he alerts and nothing is found, considering moreover that post-mortem molecules are extremely volatile.

What do you mean?

You wouldn't ask if you had smelt those molecules.

I am a retired nurse. I have worked in hospital motuaries.

Don't ASSume.

Your coment is meaningless as scientific research shows that dogs will react to completely clean odor-free cloth squares if the handler belives it (see above).

[Redblossom]

Eddie alerts to dried blood ( whether from a living or dead person) AND/OR cadaver odor. Source: Mr Grime in the PJ files.

So you are saying that the sand containing the scent of a hundred year old cadaver was found by Eddie because he was sniffing blood?
 >@@(*&)

NO

Dogs make simple errors at least 1 alert in 10.

Ok, so you are asking me to believe that Mr Grime hid a bottle of corpse contaminated sand in the rocks on the beach while he kept his dog in its cage a far distance away and when the dog found that scent after travesing a wide area of that beach it could have been an error? That he alerted to the cadaver scent hidden there? I thinkyou are pushing it, don't you?
 

Eddie on average will make a straightforward error at least one time in ten.

But there were no errors recorded in Jersey. That exercise was one exercise and one positive alert, therefore 100% correct, therefore your previous assertion that whenever eddie alerts alone it can NEVER be cadaver odour is wrong.

[debunker]

Only ifyou do not understand how truth is based on forensic or scientific methods.

*****

DB

What is sweeping is saying that truth is only truth if proven scientifically or forensically. There are things forensics and science cannot prove but which are true. Ie the lingering scent of the hundredsof molecules that make up cadaver odour. if such an instrument exists to do this I have never heard about it.  Truth of anything as provable on a court of law is different.

Such thoughts are not knowledge, but are unsupported belief.

Knowledge is defined as true belief supported by evidence. You have produced no evidence, merely stated a belief without any supporting evidence.

Ok so the goalposts are now moved to include *knowledge*

Not doing a thesis on philosophy are you?

Whatever you say you cannot square the circle here. This issue will never go away until it has been satisfactorily explained, and this far, that has not happened otherwise people wouldnt labour any point at all about it.

Only knowledge is truth. Otherwise it is mere conjecture and unsupported belief.

That is why the oath is "thetruth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."  Note there is no mention of belief or conjecture.

[debunker]

It's interesting to make a comparison of how much time was spent in all the other apartments and how much time was spent in the places Madeleine was known to have been -- as well as those places Madeleine was known not to have been but the McCanns were known to have been (if you follow the distinction) ...

It's not as simple as that. If the dog showed interest and his behaviour changed,more time would be spent to find the source of the interest. This did not happen in the other apartments, nor the Mccanns villa for that matter. Mr Grime's video commentary says where there was interest and where there wasn't.

You are assuming that with no proof.

You obviously have not watched the whole dog video then, I assume nothing.

You are assuming plenty. I am assuming nothing.

It is reasonable to assume and it is logical too, that when Mr Grime  says his dog is showing interest, as in the odour he has been trained on is in a certain place, the handler has to find the source, howver long it takes. if the dog shows *no interest* then he will wait until it does or abandon that search

That is your assumption. You only believe it and it is not necessarily the truth.

[debunker]

Some excellent points there Icabodcrane.

@Carana, do you have a link to Martin Grime's Jersey report? TIA

http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html

Would you  like a link to the independent inquiry as well?

Why, is that site not independent? Yes please.

Even if true, it doesn't really change much does it? Either the Mccanns were extremely unlucky and the dog alerted to all sorts of innocent materials only in and outside their flat from where Madeleine disappeared, and nowhere else, what are the odds of that? or there is more to it.

The ods are quite high that such errors would occur.

Really? The odds are that in a search of 17 places, the dogs would make errors in the one place from where a child went missing but not in the other 16?

The odds are that at least one alert in ten will be false. Where those false alerts occur is random. Remember that Eddie alerts to blood. I think only three joint alerts of Eddie and Keela suggested cadaver odor.  Such joint alerts have an error of the two error rates multiplied together- 2 errors in 10 alerts.

which leaves 8 alerts not in error? in flat 5a. Which constitutes alot of positive alerts in one place out of 17.
 >@@(*&)

Yes. Alerts for blood. Eddie alerts to blood OR cadaver odor. Only if Keela does not react is it possibly (less than 80%) cadaver.

[Redblossom]

Only ifyou do not understand how truth is based on forensic or scientific methods.

*****

DB

What is sweeping is saying that truth is only truth if proven scientifically or forensically. There are things forensics and science cannot prove but which are true. Ie the lingering scent of the hundredsof molecules that make up cadaver odour. if such an instrument exists to do this I have never heard about it.  Truth of anything as provable on a court of law is different.

Such thoughts are not knowledge, but are unsupported belief.

Knowledge is defined as true belief supported by evidence. You have produced no evidence, merely stated a belief without any supporting evidence.

Ok so the goalposts are now moved to include *knowledge*

Not doing a thesis on philosophy are you?

Whatever you say you cannot square the circle here. This issue will never go away until it has been satisfactorily explained, and this far, that has not happened otherwise people wouldnt labour any point at all about it.

Only knowledge is truth. Otherwise it is mere conjecture and unsupported belief.

That is why the oath is "thetruth, the whole truth and nothing but belief."  Note there is no mention of belief or conjecture.

Knowledge  by Mr Grime that he put a hundred year old corpses scent into a jar of sand and his dog trained to alert to cadavour odour ran and found it pdq is truth and not belief or conjecture

[debunker]

Eddie alerts to dried blood ( whether from a living or dead person) AND/OR cadaver odor. Source: Mr Grime in the PJ files.

So you are saying that the sand containing the scent of a hundred year old cadaver was found by Eddie because he was sniffing blood?
 >@@(*&)

NO

Dogs make simple errors at least 1 alert in 10.

Ok, so you are asking me to believe that Mr Grime hid a bottle of corpse contaminated sand in the rocks on the beach while he kept his dog in its cage a far distance away and when the dog found that scent after travesing a wide area of that beach it could have been an error? That he alerted to the cadaver scent hidden there? I thinkyou are pushing it, don't you?
 

Eddie on average will make a straightforward error at least one time in ten.

But there were no errors recorded in Jersey. That exercise was one exercise and one positive alert, therefore 100% correct, therefore your previous assertion that whenever eddie alerts alone it can NEVER be cadaver odour is wrong.

No errors in Jersey. How do you know that.

I have not said that when Eddie alerts alone it can never be cadaver odor. If you believe I have said that, please indicate where youthink I said that.