Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[stephen25000]

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 ...

I presume you have proof of abduction ?

[stephen25000]

Kate found an apartment absent of Madeleine.

So she said.

Doesn't make it true.

[Albertini]

I presume you have proof of abduction ?

Interestingly the only option Ferryman doesn't put on the table is:

if the McCann's lied as a result of the child dying in the apartment and was left for some time there would be death scent in the apartment.

And the dog alerted to death scent.

Why he would not put this option on the table when it has not been ruled out by firm evidence, and in fact was "indicated" by the dog,  tells you all you need to know about Ferryman's position on trying to find out the truth of what happened.

He appears to be adamant that the dog WAS wrong not because of any firm evidence he has but simply because he has decided the McCann's were not involved. He is now trying to fit his "facts" around his theory.

[Cariad]

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.

So you did see the video then. Did you notice the chinos/jumper combination which later became a chinos/t-shirt number?

Did you further notice that neither outfit was of a police officer and that it had zero effect on the dog's ability it alert?

 

[gilet]

So you did see the video then. Did you notice the chinos/jumper combination which later became a chinos/t-shirt number?

Did you further notice that neither outfit was of a police officer and that it had zero effect on the dog's ability it alert?

Training video. Not working situation.

And I notice you have still not commented on either posts 599 or 618.

[Cariad]

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.

No, I hadn't intended to imply that the dogs were cued to alert when there was nothing to alert to.

I must admit that I didn't read the article you posted yesterday about the case of 45 false alerts, I was too annoyed by the uniform thing.

I shall do so today though.

[gilet]

Interestingly the only option Ferryman doesn't put on the table is:

if the McCann's lied as a result of the child dying in the apartment and was left for some time there would be death scent in the apartment.

And the dog alerted to death scent.

Why he would not put this option on the table when it has not been ruled out by firm evidence, and in fact was "indicated" by the dog,  tells you all you need to know about Ferryman's position on trying to find out the truth of what happened.

He appears to be adamant that the dog WAS wrong not because of any firm evidence he has but simply because he has decided the McCann's were not involved. He is now trying to fit his "facts" around his theory.

Perhaps he places some trust in the UK and PT authorities. Something you obviously cannot bring yourself to do.

When SY specifically state that neither Gerry, nor Kate, nor any of their friends, after being investigated and after that case has been reviewed, are considered witnesses or persons of interest....

When the Portuguese authorities after one of the biggest investigations in Portuguese legal history declare in the archival report (which incidentally includes the complete reports of the dog deployment) that there is NO EVIDENCE of any crime by the McCanns...

then perhaps it is time for people to think there might just be some truth in it.

But no, you cannot manage to do that can you?

[Cariad]

Training video. Not working situation.

And I notice you have still not commented on either posts 599 or 618.

But surely for your (quite bizarre) idea that the dogs need to see a uniform in order to 'work' correctly means that the uniform should be worn during training?

Actually, to use your logic, all dog handlers should only ever wear what they wore during training, since that's what the dogs were first exposed to.

I have read all the posts. which ones in particular you're referring to now, I'll have to go back and check.

At the moment I'm stuck on the whole uniform thing. Funnily enough, it was roughly this time yesterday I gave you the perfectly logical explanation, based on personal experience ie my husband's dog walking shoes, yet here we still are.

Your inability to understand why you are wrong on this rather minor point, which really has nothing to do with the mccann case at all, doesn't inspire me to debate with you on any other facts.

[stephen25000]

Then what were you referring to?

Because the post you quoted of mine was entirely, 100% about the video.

Perhaps you should read before posting?

No.

I was referring to the case in general.

Perhaps you did not quite comprehend. How many people in their jobs use 'experience' obtained elsewhere ?

If you think people don't you are truly living in cloud cuckoo land.

As for 'judicial secrecy' both sides leaked like sieves.

[Albertini]

Perhaps he places some trust in the UK and PT authorities. Something you obviously cannot bring yourself to do.

When SY specifically state that neither Gerry, nor Kate, nor any of their friends, after being investigated and after that case has been reviewed, are considered witnesses or persons of interest....

When the Portuguese authorities after one of the biggest investigations in Portuguese legal history declare in the archival report (which incidentally includes the complete reports of the dog deployment) that there is NO EVIDENCE of any crime by the McCanns...

then perhaps it is time for people to think there might just be some truth in it.

But no, you cannot manage to do that can you?

No I'm quite happy to believe what these authorities tell me when they provide proof which i can judge for myself.

I'm happy to believe SY regarding the status of the group when they state the same at the end of the investigation, not the beginning and provide clear evidence of an alternative scenario.

The archiving report was one civil servant's view of the investigation not a legal judgement and as McCann supporters keep conveniently forgetting based on an incomplete investigation. Incomplete lest we forget, because the group refused to partake in the diligence required by the investigation in order to move it forward.

That is not the same as investigation being completed and finding the McCann's and their friends not involved.

It's very trusting simply to be told something without needing to see the evidence to support it. You accept this 100% without asking to see evidence because it supports your view about the Mccann's. So you jump on it and are prepared to abandon any logical need to see the evidence simply because you think it proves what you are saying.

I'm not prepared to do abandon my principal of wanting to see the evidence and making my own mind up. And here's the difference between us. Even if SY came out and said the group were now suspects i wouldn't jump to any conclusions until i saw the evidence they had to underpin that assertion. 

[gilet]

But surely for your (quite bizarre) idea that the dogs need to see a uniform in order to 'work' correctly means that the uniform should be worn during training?

Actually, to use your logic, all dog handlers should only ever wear what they wore during training, since that's what the dogs were first exposed to.

I have read all the posts. which ones in particular you're referring to now, I'll have to go back and check.

At the moment I'm stuck on the whole uniform thing. Funnily enough, it was roughly this time yesterday I gave you the perfectly logical explanation, based on personal experience ie my husband's dog walking shoes, yet here we still are.

Your inability to understand why you are wrong on this rather minor point, which really has nothing to do with the mccann case at all, doesn't inspire me to debate with you on any other facts.

So I am expected to take your word that I am wrong when in fact what I have done is quote a professional dog handler.

Mmm... Let me see...

[Cariad]

So I am expected to take your word that I am wrong when in fact what I have done is quote a professional dog handler.

Mmm... Let me see...

Just checked. We are discussing your post 599. It's point 4.

Also, just to make absolutely clear, the dog handler never made the claim, it's your interpretation of the words:
   
         "That demeanour changes when Geoffrey sees Jake in uniform. Then he's in work mode".

You'll find my first response to your crack pot idea in post 573.

Point 1 in 599 is wrong too. There was evidence to support those alerts found behind the sofa and in the hire car. Madeleine Mccann could not be ruled out as a possible contributor of those materials.


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

[Estuarine]

I have never, ever anywhere claimed any such credentials. I simply read and comment on the statements of professional dog handlers. I don't need credentials to do that, or forums such as this would be pointless.

Your very question is simply ridiculous.

What I have posted is directly in line with what the professionals say. No matter how often you wish to ignore that and prefer to post about banging your head like an insane person, I prefer to believe the professionals rather than amateurs such as yourself.

My experience of technical and scientific disciplines is that they have a “property” which imposes a requirement to have at least an elementary knowledge in order that one may frame an intelligent question or make an informed comment on the subject. This property caused me many years ago to coin the phrase “He doesn’t know enough to be able to ask the right questions”. I would suggest more than a few posters on this thread yourself included drop neatly into that slot. Bluff, bluster, pseudo-scientific terms and eloquent prose notwithstanding it is for the most part as pie crust; that is lacking in substance.

[Mr Gray]

My experience of technical and scientific disciplines is that they have a “property” which imposes a requirement to have at least an elementary knowledge in order that one may frame an intelligent question or make an informed comment on the subject. This property caused me many years ago to coin the phrase “He doesn’t know enough to be able to ask the right questions”. I would suggest more than a few posters on this thread yourself included drop neatly into that slot. Bluff, bluster, pseudo-scientific terms and eloquent prose notwithstanding it is for the most part as pie crust; that is lacking in substance.

you  contradict youself....many of us here have an elementary knowledge of the dogs and are therefore perfectly qualified to have an opinion.

[Brietta]

you  contradict youself....many of us here have an elementary knowledge of the dogs and are therefore perfectly qualified to have an opinion.

“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

The publicity and celebrity status attached to Eddie and Keela is unprecedented in any jurisdiction. 
Search dogs have always assisted in the searches for missing people, but they are almost invisible and rarely mentioned. 

For example in the Hazel North case TV news bulletins showed search teams searching a property in Kilmarnock accompanied by an unidentified spaniel. 
There is no indication that the dog was responsible for Hazel’s body being found, but I would be surprised if that wasn’t the case.   

POLICE confirmed that Hazel's boyfriend John Davis, 25, had been arrested in connection with her death following the grim discovery at Dean Castle Country Park in Kilmarnock. 
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/hazel-north-disappearance-police-arrest-3279438