Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Mr Gray]

I am with you Mr Moderator.
The first "cadaver" dog was deployed in 1974. So it is hardly some new kind of voodoo is it man?
Many US States have specialist EVRD Units; The FBI; The Royal Canadian Mounted Police; The US Military have used them for finding MIA's from the South East Asia conflict and so it goes on. Obviously a lot of this predates the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. These teams clearly know what they are at a little bit better than the pundits on here. If not, one helluva lot of cash has been wasted. You can imagine some US Marine "Gunny"  with his dogs in Vietnam paddy looking for MIAs saying to his dogs. "Well fellas we are being pulled out. Anonymous Limey civilians on a Limey website say we are wasting our time because some retired Portuguese detective.................."
So given that EVRDs are in wide use and have been in use since 1974, that these teams know what they are at and that it isn't exactly new technology, there are papers written by those who know what they are at on "alerts" and their meanings, why the argument on here about general reliability of the dog teams?. One rapidly comes to the conclusion it is about one particular man and two specific dogs, despite the thread title. If the pundits on here could once start arguing successfully about significant pre 2007 failure (in the plural ) of EVRDs and show that some authoritative body had closed it's EVRD facility because it was a failure then one might have a rethink. Until then the pundits on here are, forgive the expression, p***ing in the wind. I will not post a link because on a previous post I included a bibliography. It is fairly apparent what is being driven at on this thread but there appears to be a lack of bottle in actually expressing it in unequivocal terms.

so having done your extensive research you come back with exactly what I said you would....cadaver dogs are extremely good at finding cadavers...check my posts that's exactly what I said...no one disputes that fact....grimes searches are totally irrelevant to searching for cadavers..eddie is an EVRD dog...thats what hes good at...in PDL there was no cadaver and he was asked to do a different job...find evidence...he didn't find any...thats not his fault there was none there

[slartibartfast]

so having done your extensive research you come back with exactly what I said you would....cadaver dogs are extremely good at finding cadavers...check my posts that's exactly what I said...no one disputes that fact....grimes searches are totally irrelevant to searching for cadavers..eddie is an EVRD dog...thats what hes good at...in PDL there was no cadaver and he was asked to do a different job...find evidence...he didn't find any...thats not his fault there was none there

They alert to smells they are trained to alert to. There may be no physical evidence associated with the smell. The Evidence to corroborate the alert can be traces of body matter or whole corpses.

[Wonderfulspam]

Mark Harrison, from his recommendation of dog-deployment in the holiday apartments:

The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.

Intelligence indeed,

Add dog alerts to the last known sighting of Maddie (head slumped on 60-80% man's shoulder, arms hanging by her side) and then take into account that she aint been seen again and that Kate saw fit to look for her inside a big dumpster type bin and it really don't take a great deal of intelligence to work out that something other than abduction happened.

[Mr Moderator]

so having done your extensive research you come back with exactly what I said you would....cadaver dogs are extremely good at finding cadavers...check my posts that's exactly what I said...no one disputes that fact....grimes searches are totally irrelevant to searching for cadavers..eddie is an EVRD dog...thats what hes good at...in PDL there was no cadaver and he was asked to do a different job...find evidence...he didn't find any...thats not his fault there was none there

In fact he was tasked to find any evidence that a child had died in that apartment.  That evidence could be a cadaver,  cadaver parts or cadaver scent.  Eddie's alerted to potential cadaver scent on several occasions meaning that he could very well have detected a deceased Madeleine. Then again it could have been merely minute quantities of dried blood.

To get back to my last point, the alerts are just like the forensics, inconclusive.  But there still is potential for a massive cover up.

[Carana]

Intelligence indeed,

Add dog alerts to the last known sighting of Maddie (head slumped on 60-80% man's shoulder, arms hanging by her side) and then take into account that she aint been seen again and that Kate saw fit to look for her inside a big dumpster type bin and it really don't take a great deal of intelligence to work out that something other than abduction happened.

The last known sighting of her? How do you know it was her?

A family saw a child who may have been her, or not.

[Wonderfulspam]

The last known sighting of her? How do you know it was her?

A family saw a child who may have been her, or not.

Now you mention it, I forgot the pyjamas.  It can't have been Maddie can it.

[Carana]

In fact he was tasked to find any evidence that a child had died in that apartment.  That evidence could be a cadaver,  cadaver parts or cadaver scent.  Eddie's alerted to potential cadaver scent on several occasions meaning that he could very well have detected a deceased Madeleine. Then again it could have been merely minute quantities of dried blood.

To get back to my last point, the alerts are just like the forensics, inconclusive.  But there still is potential for a massive cover up.

All Grime seems to have been saying is that there was a possibility that there could have been a dead body.

Grime states that Keela would only react to the physical presence of dried blood. He says no such thing about Eddie concerning the need for a physical presence of residue.

So far, I haven't found anything to indicate that he might not have reacted to an irrelevant scent (perhaps even a bloodied plaster or socks) in the parents' bedroom, possibly from the previous occupants - who, after all, vacated the apartment just a week before it was closed up.

Eddie could have correctly alerted to what he was trained to detect, but there doesn't seem to have been an elimination process, according to the files.

I would hope that the Met interviewed the various occupants as part of the investigative review.

 
 

[ferryman]

Just reading back.

Gilet posted this in response to my point that a cadaver dog alert was not used as evidence in the Adrian Prout trial.

Hardly surprising really as the dog alert was at a place where nobody was suggesting the body had lain. And the dog failed to alert at the place where the body was found.

Not quite right.

The prosecution case was that Prout had strangled Kate in the lounge of the holiday home (which is where Eddie alerted).

It was only Prout's confession and the fact that he divulged where Kate's body was that revealed that detail as erroneous in a nonetheless safe conviction.

Prout's conviction was based on other factors, such as the fact that none of her bank accounts had been touched from the point that she disappeared.

[Jean-Pierre]

In the end, the only thing that matters is forensic evidence. 

The function of the dogs is to narrow down the search area.  It is then down to the forensic teams to gather material and the lab(s) to analyse it. 

And that is it - in this case there is no forensic evidence from which a conclusion can be drawn.

[gilet]

Just to supplement my original post with something extremely important which I forgot when posting and to add a couple of points suggested by others in relation to the work of the dogs and the effect these matters might have on the reliability of the alerts made.

To get to the nub of this thread and before anyone challenges me to do so, I will set out the reasons why I am not convinced of the reliability of the dog alerts in this particular case.

If I was asked to challenge the dog work in PDL these are some of the considerations I would reflect on and bring to the fore.

1.   There is absolutely nothing but the dog alerts. Not a single piece of evidence supports those alerts. Not a speck of Madeleine’s blood, not a single indication in any form.

2.   There was (as far as I am aware from the files) not the slightest attempt by the PJ to look at any of the other possible explanations for the dog alerts. We know that the Amaral team immediately took them as meaning that there was evidence of the death of Madeleine, even suggesting that the dogs had found things which we later discovered they never found. Is it not perfectly possible that (allowing the dog alerts to stand) that the cadaver scent in the apartment could have been introduced by some other means than an actual cadaver?

3.   The dogs were worked for very long periods of time (into the early hours of morning) in very concentrated bursts. I would wish to ask other dog handlers as well as Grime what the effect of such long hours on a dog’s reliability might be?

4.   I would be concerned that the dogs were not sensing a “working mode” because of the way in which, having been used to working with a handler in uniform, they were now working with him in civilian clothes. At least one handler I have cited says this does have an effect. I would wish to ask other handlers and Grime what their thoughts on this issue were.

5.   I would be concerned specifically about the late night alert in the garden area of Apartment 5A. We know that Grime said that this was not a strong alert and that further investigation was necessary. However I am not aware of the results of this further investigation or even whether anyone bothered to do it. I would wish to learn of those results.

6.   With regard to the car. I would ask others more expert than myself what the effect of the mishandling (in UK terms) of the car by the PJ might be and why it was simply driven to the test by a PJ officer in civvies.

7.   With regard to the clothing. I would challenge very strongly the contention that it can be said that three separate alerts occurred when all three items alerted to came from one box of unprotected items where cross-contamination would almost inevitably have occurred.

8.   I would seek very careful elaboration as to why the clothing was not alerted to in situ in the villa or if the clothing had already been removed why the residual scent was not alerted to.

9.   I would wish to know why the cuddle cat was not alerted to (rather it was played with by Eddie) before it was hidden in the cupboard. I would want to ask for the opinions of other experienced handlers as to the meaning of this anomaly.

10.   I would wish to know why the alert to the toy was so non-specific. It seemed that the alert was more generally to the kitchen area than the toy. I would want to ask for the opinions of other experienced handlers as to this clear anomaly.

11.   I would reflect on the fact that the videos which are available came not from the PJ directly but through the hands of a person whose credentials are unknown and that the videos do appear to have been edited.

12.   I would wish to ask Grime as to why he was so clear that the dogs alerts are not evidential and whether (as we are told by Serendipity) he was forced to add this to the report.

Those are just a few of the problems I see regarding the reliability of the dog alerts in PDL. Till they are all satisfactorily explained, I will continue to see the alerts as simply indications which may or may not have a real bearing on the case.

Supplementary 1.  Why did Grime (in particular) and the other people involved in the dog searches not wear standard protective clothing except in the one instance where Grime dresses head to toe when dealing with the car. (Thanks to Benice for the reminder of this one.)

Supplementary 2. What was the actual status of the dogs when in PDL? The PJ report ( http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm ) highlighted by Ferryman refers to Grime as the "trainer/owner" of the dogs. Are we to presume that the PJ was confused about the ownership or are the files accurate? Was Grime operating for personal profit or as part of work undertaken by him for South Yorkshire Police?

Supplementary 3. Again suggested by Ferryman. If Grime was working for South Yorkshire Police why did he not adhere to the norms of such work including wearing police uniform, wearing the same levels of appropriate protective clothing at all time, ensuring non-essential personnel did not have the opportunity to further contaminate the scene, and making the report of the work supposedly undertaken as part of his role as an SYP officer on official headed paper and from an official address?

[gilet]

I find it quite fascinating when gilet repeatedly posts on this issue, with to put it mildly an ultra-thin veneer of neutrality.

However, that neutrality is irrelevant  and clearly doesn't exist, no matter the pretense.

It has already been established that the forensics were inconclusive.

The dogs made alerts, which posters from either side of the fence will disagree on.

The bottom line is, posters supporting the mccanns will attack the use of dogs and say they have no meaning, whilst those on the reverse will say they have significance, as dogs are very reliable in what they do. The same dogs having being used by the same handler in other cases.

Likewise, Martin Grime had no axe to grind, he was merely doing his job, and any other handler would also have been attacked by the mccanns supporters in the same way.


It has always been a SHAME they never attacked the parents for what they did in leaving their children in the first place, which is where the case starts with Madeleine's disappearance and the inexcusable leaving of leaving 3 children unprotected for extended periods of time, with infrequent and  no independently corroborated checks. As s well known, children of that age are extremely vulnerable, and nothing said by the mccanns  or those that back them, can change that.

Meanwhile there is nothing to prove an abduction took place, and certainly no forensics to back one up.

I find your post desperately sad. Your whole approach seems to be "attack", expecting it of others and regretting that others don't attack the parents of a missing little girl and imagining that the posts of others are some form of attack when they are no such thing.

A little bit of my personal history regarding the case may enlighten you. Initially, when I first began to read about the case, I was extremely dubious about the role of the parents and even their friends who were in PDL with them. But even then I did not "attack" the parents. Why should I? I am not at war against them. I simply want to find the truth as to what happened. The best method of doing this is not to "attack" those who may be involved but to question as carefully and as widely as possible about the events. The idea of "attacking" suspects was prevalent in certain police forces in the past but in civilised nations such methods have been seen to be ineffective and downright dangerous. Clearly it is not to your liking that modern police and others who see that simple "attack" is ineffective prefer to use more effective methodologies.

I managed, eventually, to get to read the full PJ files which I noted bore absolutely no resemblance to the blazing headlines of the UK and PT media which had previously been my main source of information about the events. I noted also that the conclusions of the PJ files did not, in any way support the book written by Amaral which I read in its French and English translations. I considered all this in relation to my initial doubts about the integrity of the McCanns and decided that there was not sufficient evidence for me to consider them guilty of any crime. I did not rule out that in the future some such evidence might come to light but in 2008/2009 it certainly did not exist in the public domain.

Since then I have not seen any new evidence which has persuaded me of the guilt of the parents of any crime. And unlike certain people on this forum, I retain some trust in both the PJ and SY teams who have both indicated that they are not looking at the parents as suspects and this further reinforces my own reading of the evidence.

The reason you do not see me questioning the McCanns so much now is that personally I have already done that. I assure you that I have looked at the statements (yes there are inconsistencies but having taken the time to discuss this with serving police I realise that similar inconsistencies exist in every set of statements as people simply do not recall things in identical ways), I have looked at the dog alerts and realise that they do not indicate that Madeleine McCann is dead (yes they may alert to unexplained cadaver scent but that is not proof of anything) and I have taken note that every one of the most lurid stories which originally influenced me has been removed by the newspaper involved without any attempt to defend it in a court of law (which strongly suggests that they know there is nothing to support the headlines).

I don't take anything at all at face value. And that includes the alerts of the dogs.

You seem to take issue with me posing questions about the dogs and suggest that we should take them at face value as indicating a death in the apartment. Only last night I discussed that here at length with Pathfinder and was not altogether surprised to find that he or she could not provide any evidence to support that an alert to cadaver scent in the apartment must have related to the presence of an actual cadaver in that apartment. There is nothing to show that the presence of such cadaver scent (if such a scent ever was present and even Grime cannot do more than tell us the alerts are suggestive not definitive indicators of that) could not have been due to such scent having been introduced into the apartment by some other means (on clothing, object etc.).

Thankfully, I am aware that police do not have your attitude to things these days. They question everything relating to a case, they know that should they ever bring a case to court the lawyers will also question every detail of the work done. They do not simply say that people had no motive to do something wrong therefore their actions need not be questioned. They know that everybody has the capacity to make mistakes.

And most importantly they do not, as your post shows you shamefully want people to, "attack" people. They investigate and look for the truth. I try to emulate those methods.

As for your final comment please take that to the relevant thread. This topic is about the reliability of the dogs.

[gilet]

Gilet, my husband almost always wears a particular pair of shoes to walk the dogs. The second he lays his hands on the shoe, the dogs' behaviour changes. They know that they're going for a walk. My husband works shifts, so the dogs aren't walked at a particular time.

On the very rare occasion that he has worn different shoes, or has had to replace his 'dog walking' shoes, the dogs have not jumped up ready for walkies as he's lacing them up.

The second he touches their leads they react though. They don't refuse to leave the house cause he's wearing the wrong shoes! They're still cued to prance about with waggy tails, just at a slightly later point, i.e picking up the leads.

The idea that someone has to be wearing the right clothes is laughable to anyone who owns a dog. Or knows a dog. Or knows someone who knows a dog.

Work is a human concept.  Dogs like to be busy and engaged. An intelligent dog needs something to do. It isn't a job or work to them. It's fun!


Edited to add that Mr Grime failing to wear the correct clothing caused his dogs to be less reliable has to be the most ridiculous argument I've heard so far.

As a non-expert I accept your comments. However, in my original post I showed that an expert dog-handler does state that the change in clothing affects whether the dog is in "working mode". If experts have reservations then there is a legitimate question to answer.

And do remember that Mr Grime did not even wear consistent clothing in PDL. Why did he not follow the kind of procedures a police officer would normally follow?

[stephen25000]

I find your post desperately sad. Your whole approach seems to be "attack", expecting it of others and regretting that others don't attack the parents of a missing little girl and imagining that the posts of others are some form of attack when they are no such thing.

A little bit of my personal history regarding the case may enlighten you. Initially, when I first began to read about the case, I was extremely dubious about the role of the parents and even their friends who were in PDL with them. But even then I did not "attack" the parents. Why should I? I am not at war against them. I simply want to find the truth as to what happened. The best method of doing this is not to "attack" those who may be involved but to question as carefully and as widely as possible about the events. The idea of "attacking" suspects was prevalent in certain police forces in the past but in civilised nations such methods have been seen to be ineffective and downright dangerous. Clearly it is not to your liking that modern police and others who see that simple "attack" is ineffective prefer to use more effective methodologies.

I managed, eventually, to get to read the full PJ files which I noted bore absolutely no resemblance to the blazing headlines of the UK and PT media which had previously been my main source of information about the events. I noted also that the conclusions of the PJ files did not, in any way support the book written by Amaral which I read in its French and English translations. I considered all this in relation to my initial doubts about the integrity of the McCanns and decided that there was not sufficient evidence for me to consider them guilty of any crime. I did not rule out that in the future some such evidence might come to light but in 2008/2009 it certainly did not exist in the public domain.

Since then I have not seen any new evidence which has persuaded me of the guilt of the parents of any crime. And unlike certain people on this forum, I retain some trust in both the PJ and SY teams who have both indicated that they are not looking at the parents as suspects and this further reinforces my own reading of the evidence.

The reason you do not see me questioning the McCanns so much now is that personally I have already done that. I assure you that I have looked at the statements (yes there are inconsistencies but having taken the time to discuss this with serving police I realise that similar inconsistencies exist in every set of statements as people simply do not recall things in identical ways), I have looked at the dog alerts and realise that they do not indicate that Madeleine McCann is dead (yes they may alert to unexplained cadaver scent but that is not proof of anything) and I have taken note that every one of the most lurid stories which originally influenced me has been removed by the newspaper involved without any attempt to defend it in a court of law (which strongly suggests that they know there is nothing to support the headlines).

I don't take anything at all at face value. And that includes the alerts of the dogs.

You seem to take issue with me posing questions about the dogs and suggest that we should take them at face value as indicating a death in the apartment. Only last night I discussed that here at length with Pathfinder and was not altogether surprised to find that he or she could not provide any evidence to support that an alert to cadaver scent in the apartment must have related to the presence of an actual cadaver in that apartment. There is nothing to show that the presence of such cadaver scent (if such a scent ever was present and even Grime cannot do more than tell us the alerts are suggestive not definitive indicators of that) could not have been due to such scent having been introduced into the apartment by some other means (on clothing, object etc.).

Thankfully, I am aware that police do not have your attitude to things these days. They question everything relating to a case, they know that should they ever bring a case to court the lawyers will also question every detail of the work done. They do not simply say that people had no motive to do something wrong therefore their actions need not be questioned. They know that everybody has the capacity to make mistakes.

And most importantly they do not, as your post shows you shamefully want people to, "attack" people. They investigate and look for the truth. I try to emulate those methods.

As for your final comment please take that to the relevant thread. This topic is about the reliability of the dogs.

You are not neutral in your stance and never have been.

Nothing you have typed here would suggest otherwise.

As to 'attacking people', pull the other one.

Place Madeleine's disappearance where it belongs, at her parents feet.

Again with 'abduction',  NAE EVIDENCE AT ALL.

P.S. I am not 't war' with the parents, but I do place the blame where it belongs and nothing you can say will change that.

[gilet]

That's the point and importantly the distinction which some are failing to make.  Martin Grime stated that the alerts 'had no evidential value' in the absence of 'forensic corroboration', he did not state they weren't evidence.  To take this one step further, if forensic corroboration is found, the alerts then become evidence with evidential value.  The bottom line is, the alerts exist, they were documented and can be referred to in a criminal court if need be.

I will add this though.  The exercise was fraught with difficulties and obstacles, the least being the passage of time and contamination.  It achieved very little of anything and in my opinion was a complete fiasco of monumental proportion.

So the situation is that in PDL the dogs alerted and no forensic corroboration was found for those alerts. Therefore there was no evidential value in those alerts. Therefore those alerts simply did not (and still have not) become evidence.  They cannot be referred to in any court as evidence, though their existence as uncorroborated alerts can be referred to as such.

I entirely agree with your final paragraph. The entire exercise undertaken by Grime with his dogs in PDL was indeed a "complete fiasco of monumental proportion" and would be ripped to shreds by even the most junior lawyer in any court room were it ever to be referred to in such a situation. What amazes me is the inability of many to see this.

[gilet]

Depends what you mean.  The dogs alerts in the farm bungalow alerted police to the fact that she might be dead.  That in turn was but one factor which encouraged the CPS to take it to court.

Ref your point on evidence.  The dog evidence is a fact, it just doesn't disappear when it suits.  The value or as has been referred to, the evidential value, will vary depending on the forensics.  There is forensics in the case but inconclusive therefore leaving the entire case in limbo land.

So in the Prout case, I agree the dog alerts were merely an indicator.

But your second paragraph is flawed. You refer to such alerts as evidence. They are not evidence unless corroborated. They are merely indicators with absolutely no evidential value or reliability with out such corroboration as Grime persistently tells us.