Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 374651 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #660 on: April 07, 2014, 11:40:55 PM »
I don't know when the training video was filmed, but it is obviously normal practice....
No rubber gloves were used when training and using skeletal samples?……Could this not cause X contamination of trainer’s clothing etc?
Is it a  possibility that further X contamination may occur during an investigation whilst innocently, touching and brushing past articles, while wearing garments, used in training, without the use of protective gloves ?

Video around at around 1 min.15 secs onwards


During training there is far less likelihood of contamination because the handler or training organiser knows the location of the scent.

When dealing with sites and locations where intensive forensic examination is likely to be needed then full protection should be standard practice.

Why did Grime dress up for the car search but not bother for the other searches. That makes absolutely no sense to the lay observer.

Alfred R Jones

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #661 on: April 07, 2014, 11:42:56 PM »
it is the command that the dog reacts to, not the clothing, not the environment, not the weather. The command.

I think for some that is the concern.  The dog is supposed to react when it smells cadaver not when it is commanded to react.  Possibly this isn't what you meant to imply but it is certainly a possibility in this case as in the Thomas Quirk case, don't you agree?  I'm not suggesting it was a deliberate command by the way but that the handler may, owing to a strong belief in the guilt of the parties being examined, have miscued the dog unconsciously. This is a phenomenon that has been officially observed in test situations on sniffer dogs by the way.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #662 on: April 07, 2014, 11:59:56 PM »
I think for some that is the concern.  The dog is supposed to react when it smells cadaver not when it is commanded to react.  Possibly this isn't what you meant to imply but it is certainly a possibility in this case as in the Thomas Quirk case, don't you agree?  I'm not suggesting it was a deliberate command by the way but that the handler may, owing to a strong belief in the guilt of the parties being examined, have miscued the dog unconsciously. This is a phenomenon that has been officially observed in test situations on sniffer dogs by the way.

Why are you assuming the dog was  'wrong'   ?   (  for whatever reason ) 

I mean,  Madeleine McCann disappeared without trace and was last seen alive   ( seven years ago  )  in the very apartment where the cadaver dog barked his alert

On what basis do you assume there must be some  reason,    OTHER   than because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body,   for the dog alerting  ?   

Do you accept that the dog may have alerted for no other reason than he DID  detect  the scent of the missing child's dead body  ?   

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #663 on: April 08, 2014, 12:07:20 AM »
Why are you assuming the dog was  'wrong'   ?   (  for whatever reason ) 

I mean,  Madeleine McCann disappeared without trace and was last seen alive   ( seven years ago  )  in the very apartment where the cadaver dog barked his alert

On what basis do you assume there must be some  reason,    OTHER   than because he detected the scent of the missing child's dead body,   for the dog alerting  ?   

Do you accept that the dog may have alerted for no other reason than he DID  detect  the scent of the missing child's dead body  ?

If Madeleine's abductor took her alive from the apartment, there would be no death scent.

If (almost certainly he) took her dead from the apartment, there would be no death scent, because the PMI would be too short.

If Madeleine wandered out of the apartment of her own accord, there would be no death scent.

All equals no death scent ...

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #664 on: April 08, 2014, 12:14:59 AM »
If Madeleine's abductor took her alive from the apartment, there would be no death scent.

If (almost certainly he) took her dead from the apartment, there would be no death scent, because the PMI would be too short.

If Madeleine wandered out of the apartment of her own accord, there would be no death scent.

All equals no death scent ...

What evidence is there to support your assertion that the missing child's dead body was  not  in the apartment long enough for a cadaver scent to have been detectable to the dog  ?   (  an hour and a half  ) 

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #665 on: April 08, 2014, 12:17:31 AM »
What evidence is there to support your assertion that the missing child's dead body was  not  in the apartment long enough for a cadaver scent to have been detectable to the dog  ?   (  an hour and a half  )

Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #666 on: April 08, 2014, 12:24:28 AM »
Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.

ah,  so the  'evidence'  you are citing is the McCanns'  'say-so' 

OK then,  we'll leave it there

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #667 on: April 08, 2014, 12:27:18 AM »
ah,  so the  'evidence'  you are citing is the McCanns'  'say-so' 

OK then,  we'll leave it there

So you dismiss automatically, the statement of a UK GP as being unreliable? On what basis do you do that?

Are all statements automatically unreliable in your view or just those of the McCanns?

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #668 on: April 08, 2014, 12:37:55 AM »
So you dismiss automatically, the statement of a UK GP as being unreliable? On what basis do you do that?

Are all statements automatically unreliable in your view or just those of the McCanns?

What a silly question

I am questioning the value of Kate McCann's statement because  IF  Madeleine's dead body was in the apartment long enough for a cadaver scent to be detectable,  then the McCanns  (  both of them )  would,  necessarily,  have to have lied

....   and what on earth has the fact that she is a  GP  got to do with it  ? 

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #669 on: April 08, 2014, 12:56:33 AM »
What a silly question

I am questioning the value of Kate McCann's statement because  IF  Madeleine's dead body was in the apartment long enough for a cadaver scent to be detectable,  then the McCanns  (  both of them )  would,  necessarily,  have to have lied

....   and what on earth has the fact that she is a  GP  got to do with it  ?
Thanks for the response. Not as silly as you claim as it has made clear for the first time your motive for dismissing the statement as you did.

Offline pegasus

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #670 on: April 08, 2014, 01:01:34 AM »
The Morris/Martinez study found a minimum PM interval of 1H25m.
That was for gauze pads placed in direct skin contact, and even then only 1 of the 5 dogs alerted.
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
For consistent detection (5 out of 5 dogs) the minimum PM interval was 2H30m to 3h00m for gauze pads.
For purely residual scent (no convenient direct contact gauze pads) I would imagine it might be longer than that?

Offline pegasus

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #671 on: April 08, 2014, 02:02:11 AM »
If one takes the absolute (1 out of 5 dogs, ideal conditions) minimum from csst study, how do things add up?

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #672 on: April 08, 2014, 02:24:00 AM »
If one takes the absolute (1 out of 5 dogs, ideal conditions) minimum from csst study, how do things add up?

How do things add up. How about the truth? The real reason for that routine change will be investigated.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Albertini

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #673 on: April 08, 2014, 07:04:30 AM »
Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.

And do you have any independent evidence that corroborates what Kate says happened?

Or are you happy to simply accept the word of a witness without challenge or supporting evidence?

Fortunately in the real world, real police are not as trusting as you appear to be.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #674 on: April 08, 2014, 07:09:10 AM »
What reason would the dog handler have had for mentioning the dog's reaction to the handler's appearance if it had no bearing whatsoever on the dog's performance?

Also, thanks Gilet for addressing my post concerning the 45 false alerts given by Zampo in the Thomas Quirk case.

Back again. 8((()*/