Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Cariad]

Are we talking about Fred or a dog

Fred is knackered now. We're back on the dogs.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSD2VfDRWIE

Please not that Mr Grime is sometimes wearing a jumper and sometimes in a t shirt while training his dogs. Apparently the trainers attire does not affect the dogs training.

[gilet]

Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves.  He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed.  A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.

"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders. 

Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there?  Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...

There are few credible explanations for this behaviour of Zampo.

One might be that there was a scent relating to an unknown cadaver in the locations alerted at but which has never been found despite human intervention. This seems highly unlikely as an explanation given the high number of locations where such a coincidental scent would have to have existed.

Another might be that the dog's training was flawed and that some other scent in the environment was, unbeknown to the handler, also capable of triggering an alert by this dog.

The third possibility also relates to possible flaws in the dog's training or handling. The training is in the form of a game with rewards. Perhaps the dog was too keen to receive rewards, perhaps the handler was not sufficiently aware of the potential for cueing of the dog.

We can only speculate, of course, as to possible reasons. There is no right answer to the question you posed.

But what the whole episode does re-inforce very strongly is that simply telling people that "dogs don't lie" or that "the dog alerts are evidence" without further careful and serious investigation and without being open-minded enough to accept that there are many examples of such flawed alerts is pointless. Such behaviour does not help anyone find the truth.

[Carana]

Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

Well, not always as the case of Thomas Quick proves.  He was someone who confessed to a string of murders leading detectives to the places where he said the murders were committed.  A police dog called Zampo was used to build a case against him.

"During the course of the investigation, Quick mentioned at least 24 different places in Sweden and Norway where he had committed murders, handled dead bodies or left body parts," says Leyla Belle Drake, who was Hannes Råstam's literary agent. "Zampo marked for human remains 45 times at those 24 locations. Not a single trace of blood or body parts was ever found."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

The reason why no trace of blood or body parts was found in those locations despite the positive alerts was because Thomas Quick didn't actually commit any of the murders. 

Why, I wonder, did the dog alert 45 times at those 24 locations if no murders had taken place there?  Perhaps one of the dog experts on this forum could explain...

Welcome Alfred. Yes, a bizarre case, and the focus of the article wasn't even on the dogs, but about the general goose chase.

[Cariad]

There are few credible explanations for this behaviour of Zampo.

One might be that there was a scent relating to an unknown cadaver in the locations alerted at but which has never been found despite human intervention. This seems highly unlikely as an explanation given the high number of locations where such a coincidental scent would have to have existed.

Another might be that the dog's training was flawed and that some other scent in the environment was, unbeknown to the handler, also capable of triggering an alert by this dog.

The third possibility also relates to possible flaws in the dog's training or handling. The training is in the form of a game with rewards. Perhaps the dog was too keen to receive rewards, perhaps the handler was not sufficiently aware of the potential for cueing of the dog.

We can only speculate, of course, as to possible reasons. There is no right answer to the question you posed.

But what the whole episode does re-inforce very strongly is that simply telling people that "dogs don't lie" or that "the dog alerts are evidence" without further careful and serious investigation and without being open-minded enough to accept that there are many examples of such flawed alerts is pointless. Such behaviour does not help anyone find the truth.

The trainer probably wasn't wearing the correct uniform.

[Cariad]

Yes, that is a possibility if it is not within the working parameters of that dog. Are you seriously suggesting that such a garb could not distract a dog or even that dogs cannot be distracted? Because that would be really silly.

Yes, I'm saying that a bloody dog is not a bloody human and you have to stop assuming that they are!!!

The bloody dog does not know what a bloody tutu is cause its a bloody dog!!! It smells its master. It hears it's master and it senses its master! It doesn't care if its master is in a bloody, bloody tutu!

Its a BLOODY DOG!!!!

I've gone passed face palming know and I'm repeatedly head banging the desk. Have you never even known anyone who owns a dog?

Have you been to an area that dogs frequent?

Or have  you perchance red the Spot the dog books?

Look, imagine for a moment that you're an evolutionary biologist and I'm a creationist claiming that it's more likely God planted dinosaur bones for a laugh than that evolution is true. Imagine the level of frustration you'd be feeling?

That's me right now.

[stephen25000]

Yes, I'm saying that a bloody dog is not a bloody human and you have to stop assuming that they are!!!

The bloody dog does not know what a bloody tutu is cause its a bloody dog!!! It smells its master. It hears it's master and it senses its master! It doesn't care if its master is in a bloody, bloody tutu!

Its a BLOODY DOG!!!!

I've gone passed face palming know and I'm repeatedly head banging the desk. Have you never even known anyone who owns a dog?

Have you been to an area that dogs frequent?

Or have  you perchance red the Spot the dog books?

Look, imagine for a moment that you're an evolutionary biologist and I'm a creationist claiming that it's more likely God planted dinosaur bones for a laugh than that evolution is true. Imagine the level of frustration you'd be feeling?

That's me right now.

Excellent post Cariad.

 

[Mr Gray]

Grime has actually done the McCanns a massive favour. Just imagine if he had simply said in his opinion the dogs alerted to cadaverine...what ammunition for the disbelievers. But no.....he explained that we should not simply point the finger at the McCanns...but look at where cross contamination may have occurred

[gilet]

Why would Martin Grime necessarily assume that the Grand Scenic was used by the McCanns just because it had Madeleine posters on the back windows, for all he knew it was a decoy vehicle entered into the process.  You are allowing your prejudices to cloud your judgement gilet.

Sorry missed this earlier.

It wasn't simply the posters though.

Grime has made this claim about two cars both featured heavily on every news broadcast about the cases concerned. Are you suggesting that Grime is so incompetent that he does no prior research about cases in which he is about to be involved? For weeks on end virtually every newspaper and TV news broadcast covered the McCanns and showed them coming and going in that car.

And are you forgetting that this rather shambolic affair in PDL was not under the direction of the PJ. It was Harrison and Grime who organised the methodology and directed the dog searches. Are you suggesting that Grime might have even contemplated that the PJ who had needed to bring in expert outside help on this matter would have simply thrown a decoy car at him to confuse the dogs?

I am not allowing any prejudices to cloud my judgement. I am giving Grime the benefit of being a professional who does basic initial research on the matters he is asked to investigate and who knew that it was his own expertise that the PJ were in fact relying on.

[gilet]

Yes, I'm saying that a bloody dog is not a bloody human and you have to stop assuming that they are!!!

The bloody dog does not know what a bloody tutu is cause its a bloody dog!!! It smells its master. It hears it's master and it senses its master! It doesn't care if its master is in a bloody, bloody tutu!

Its a BLOODY DOG!!!!

I've gone passed face palming know and I'm repeatedly head banging the desk. Have you never even known anyone who owns a dog?

Have you been to an area that dogs frequent?

Or have  you perchance red the Spot the dog books?

Look, imagine for a moment that you're an evolutionary biologist and I'm a creationist claiming that it's more likely God planted dinosaur bones for a laugh than that evolution is true. Imagine the level of frustration you'd be feeling?

That's me right now.

I'm not going to respond in kind to your inane post other than to say repeat that no matter how hard you bang your head on your desk like someone with a personality disorder, I prefer to take the word of the professional dog-handler which I posted earlier.

You seem to think that dogs cannot be distracted by simple things.

That is just foolishness.

[gilet]

What is becoming very clear is that certain posters are desperately avoiding posts 599 and 618 on this thread where they might have to discuss the reliability of the actual dogs and are doing their very best to disrupt with inane and childish comments.

It's obvious why as well.

[Mr Gray]

Even Grime himself does not EVEN have the conviction to say in his" opinion" the alert is to cadaverine...that's how unconvinced he is

[stephen25000]

What is becoming very clear is that certain posters are desperately avoiding posts 599 and 618 on this thread where they might have to discuss the reliability of the actual dogs and are doing their very best to disrupt with inane and childish comments.

It's obvious why as well.

No what is self evident is your expression of neutrality, ridiculous in extreme.

 No matter what you claim or is counter claimed , the dogs have significance.

That is why you keep returning to the subject.

[Mr Gray]

The commoner garden domestic / house dog will react to outside distractions !
A professional / working dog will carry out the work they are trained to do irregardless of outside influences or how their handler is dressed !
I have worked extensively with guide dogs for the blind, the breeds I have worked with varied from Retrievers, Labradors and Bull Mastiffs, the working dog WILL NOT react differently irregardless of what clothing their handler is wearing.
They have a job to do for which they have been trained to do AND they carry out that job in accordance with their training !

well Im glad we've got that one cleared up...had grime worn  a tutu and fairywings the alerts would have been the same

[Cariad]

I'm not going to respond in kind to your inane post other than to say repeat that no matter how hard you bang your head on your desk like someone with a personality disorder, I prefer to take the word of the professional dog-handler which I posted earlier.

You seem to think that dogs cannot be distracted by simple things.

That is just foolishness.

Show me the post where the dog handler claims that his dog will not respond unless he's wearing his uniform?

You can't cause it doesn't exist.

What was said is that the dog shifts in to work mode when the uniform is seen.

How you have managed to twist this to meaning that the dog will not react unless the uniform is being worn is beyond me comprehension!

It is THE most stupid reason I have ever heard for the dog's markings being unreliable. Bar none. It is in line with Sadie's Bushra/Madeleine Moroccan fake bobbies with blue drawn on nipples fiasco.

It is that  ridiculous!

Don't take my word for it. Go and ask someone walking their dog if the dog would've still left the house if he'd used a different lead.

As for my post being inane, give me that over humourless, arrogant, misinformed and condescending any day!

[gilet]

The commoner garden domestic / house dog will react to outside distractions !
A professional / working dog will carry out the work they are trained to do irregardless of outside influences or how their handler is dressed !
I have worked extensively with guide dogs for the blind, the breeds I have worked with varied from Retrievers, Labradors and Bull Mastiffs, the working dog WILL NOT react differently irregardless of what clothing their handler is wearing.
They have a job to do for which they have been trained to do AND they carry out that job in accordance with their training !

Take it up with the expert I quoted who I prefer to believe over unqualified posters.
Now what about posts 599 and 618?