Dog alerts indicating Cadaver Odor

[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 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

Yes. Eddie will be right 9 times in ten if tested like this. He will be in error about o n e time in ten.

[Redblossom]

Beyond doubt, it is appalling bad practice for any dog attending a crime scene to pick things in up in its mouth.

Also to trample all over stuff the dog is tasked to inspect.

And quite what Grime was playing at putting Eddie in a position where he had no trained response to indicate anything specific, I'm not sure ...

Wouldn't that be for a seasoned dog handler using a single dog to know and not a layman?

A seasoned (and professional!) dog handler would know -- better!

Since you are a layman you are in no  position whatsoever to state that Mr Grime should have known better as you have no idea of Eddies training, actions, etc etc

[debunker]

Beyond doubt, it is appalling bad practice for any dog attending a crime scene to pick things in up in its mouth.

Also to trample all over stuff the dog is tasked to inspect.

And quite what Grime was playing at putting Eddie in a position where he had no trained response to indicate anything specific, I'm not sure ...

Wouldn't that be for a seasoned dog handler using a single dog to know and not a layman?

A seasoned (and professional!) dog handler would know -- better!

Since you are a layman you are in no  position whatsoever to state that Mr Grime should have known better as you have no idea of Eddies training, actions, etc etc

Exactly- as wortless as your opinions.

[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.
 >@@(*&)

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

No, you were talking about the alerts that Keela did not confirm, therefore not blood

[Redblossom]

Beyond doubt, it is appalling bad practice for any dog attending a crime scene to pick things in up in its mouth.

Also to trample all over stuff the dog is tasked to inspect.

And quite what Grime was playing at putting Eddie in a position where he had no trained response to indicate anything specific, I'm not sure ...

Wouldn't that be for a seasoned dog handler using a single dog to know and not a layman?

A seasoned (and professional!) dog handler would know -- better!

Since you are a layman you are in no  position whatsoever to state that Mr Grime should have known better as you have no idea of Eddies training, actions, etc etc

Exactly- as wortless as your opinions.

YOU might think my comments are worthless, doesnt make them so, that is YOUR opinion, but I did not profess to know what a cadaver dog should and shouldnt do and pretend to know better than the professional

[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.

No, you were talking about the alerts that Keela did not confirm, therefore not blood

In such joint alerts, only 80% at maximum on average will be correct.

[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.

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.

yes you did, your post today around 3.30 pm

Quote


Eddie alerts to dried blood from a currently living person. An alert from him alone NEVER indicates cadaver odor.


Unquote
 

My copy and paste from Lenny Harper earlier on the thread where he said the dogs were tested in Jersey and they  were always right, ergo, no errors in Jersey

[debunker]

Beyond doubt, it is appalling bad practice for any dog attending a crime scene to pick things in up in its mouth.

Also to trample all over stuff the dog is tasked to inspect.

And quite what Grime was playing at putting Eddie in a position where he had no trained response to indicate anything specific, I'm not sure ...

Wouldn't that be for a seasoned dog handler using a single dog to know and not a layman?

A seasoned (and professional!) dog handler would know -- better!

Since you are a layman you are in no  position whatsoever to state that Mr Grime should have known better as you have no idea of Eddies training, actions, etc etc

Exactly- as wortless as your opinions.

YOU might think my comments are worthless, doesnt make them so, that is YOUR opinion, but I did not profess to know what a cadaver dog should and shouldnt do and pretend to know better than the professional

I am not claming to know better than the professionals. I am quoting the results of professional researchers in peer reviwed journals. You are merely saying what you believe. I produce evidence, you produce emotions.

[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.
 >@@(*&)

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

No, you were talking about the alerts that Keela did not confirm, therefore not blood

In such joint alerts, only 80% at maximum on average will be correct.

Obfuscating  now? There were two joint alerts between Eddie and Keela. POSSIBLY both to blood but not proven there was no cadaver odour involved. ALL the other alerts were Eddies only, ergo alerts to cadaverous contaminant only and not blood.

[Redblossom]

Beyond doubt, it is appalling bad practice for any dog attending a crime scene to pick things in up in its mouth.

Also to trample all over stuff the dog is tasked to inspect.

And quite what Grime was playing at putting Eddie in a position where he had no trained response to indicate anything specific, I'm not sure ...

Wouldn't that be for a seasoned dog handler using a single dog to know and not a layman?

A seasoned (and professional!) dog handler would know -- better!

Since you are a layman you are in no  position whatsoever to state that Mr Grime should have known better as you have no idea of Eddies training, actions, etc etc

Exactly- as wortless as your opinions.

YOU might think my comments are worthless, doesnt make them so, that is YOUR opinion, but I did not profess to know what a cadaver dog should and shouldnt do and pretend to know better than the professional

I am not claming to know better than the professionals. I am quoting the results of professional researchers in peer reviwed journals. You are merely saying what you believe. I produce evidence, you produce emotions.

i never accused you of professing to know better, it was Ferryman who suggested he did

[Redblossom]

Anyone with half a brain will know that this question will not go away until resolved

I suppose everyone should just accept what the Mccanns say then?

- the dogs are extremely unreliable
- mentioning the dogs is abuse
- the dogs only reacted to please their master
- the dogs have been problematic on the past, etc, funny that, until and afted the Mccann case and Jersey case I dont recall anyone making a song and dance about the reliability of these dogs to this extent of libelling and misconstruing
 >@@(*&)

Everyone knows these two statements are untrue

and what DB and others say here

- the dog alerts mean nothing and should be ignored


I will hold an informed opinion on what they could mean

[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.

yes you did, your post today around 3.30 pm

Quote


Eddie alerts to dried blood from a currently living person. An alert from him alone NEVER indicates cadaver odor.


Unquote
 

My copy and paste from Lenny Harper earlier on the thread where he said the dogs were tested in Jersey and they  were always right, ergo, no errors in Jersey

Ah! I see your problem.

I said that an alert from Eddie alone can never INDICATE cadaver cadaver odor.

You misinterpreted this as me saying that Eddie alerts alone this can never BE cadaver odor.

An alert from Eddie shows is that it could be dried blood or cadaver odor (or an error). As blood is many thousands of times more likely to be found, a sigle alert cannot INDICATE cadaver odor as it is far more likely to be a cut finger or shaving nick. If Keela fails to react, this tends to indicate cadaver odor (or an error) but not blood.

[DCI]

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 think you will find the test was done in Kew Gardens, London.

In February 2009 States of Jersey Police sent the fragment to Kew Gardens in the UK for testing. In May 2009 the Kew experts[7] stated that the fragment was a piece of endocarp of Cocos nucifera, thereby confirming that the fragment was a piece of coconut.[8]

Don't forget, Grime was selling these dogs to Harper, in Jersey, by using his private business. He also used the video recorded in Praia da Luz, of the McCann's car, to do so. If I'm not mistaken, this was before the official files were released.

[debunker]

Anyone with half a brain will know that this queation will not go away until resolved.

I suppose everyone should just accept what the Mccanns say

- the dogs are extremely unreliable
- mentioning the dogs is abuse
 >@@(*&)

Everyone knows these two statements are untrue

and what DB and others say here

- the dog alerts mean nothing and should be ignored


I will hold an informed opinion on what they could mean

Alternatively we could calmly consider the facts.

[Redblossom]

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 think you will find the test was done in Kew Gardens, London.

In February 2009 States of Jersey Police sent the fragment to Kew Gardens in the UK for testing. In May 2009 the Kew experts[7] stated that the fragment was a piece of endocarp of Cocos nucifera, thereby confirming that the fragment was a piece of coconut.[8]

Don't forget, Grime was selling these dogs to Harper, in Jersey, by using his private business. He also used the video recorded in Praia da Luz, of the McCann's car, to do so. If I'm not mistaken, this was before the official files were released.

Well then seems to be a discrepancy in what was sent to be tested....oxford lab says collagen, kew gardens says coconut, the two dont marry