Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Carana]

But even then, something's not correct as the 5A apartment inspection was on 31 July, so someone seems to have got mixed up on dates.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P8/08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_2054.jpg

[Carana]

You're off topic.  Who MG was working for and how much he earned has no relevance here.

Sorry. I was just replying to your own post.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg143902#msg143902

[Cariad]

OK, thanks - I'd be very interested to know what your thoughts are on Zampo  (the dog that falsely alerted in the Thomas Quirk case) when you're ready to give them.

The article was brilliant and I'm very pleased I stopped arguing about uniforms for long enough to read it. The Thomas Quick case is new to me. I'll be buying the book.

Right, Zampo seems to be John Sjoberg's dog.

http://www.spek-9services.com/about.html

His company is the one I was raving about a couple of weeks ago when they were featured on Inside the animal mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RSGpilH7e4 from a couple of minutes in.

My opinion as a non expert is that the most likely reason for that large series of uncorroborated alerts is handler cueing.

I will qualify that answer with the fact that we don't really now if the alerts were entirely uncorroborated.  What we have is line in an article. We also have the above links to show that the trainer is still working.

I do intend to read the book though and if it contains any other pertinent info on Zampo, I'll pass it on.

[Cariad]

I feel there is usually more to these dog-alert topics than what is deduced from the use of one`s "common sense."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

That's the link to the article on Thomas quick and zampo,


"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. The dog is just as bad as the rest of them."
if you weren't aware of the case either.

Those are the couple of lines about Zampo, but if you have the time, I found the entire article fascinating.

[Carew]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  For Zampo to have alerted correctly 45 times in 24 locations it would mean that by some amazing coincidence Thomas Quick led the police to numerous places where numerous dead bodies and body parts had lain in previous months or years.  Common sense tells us that this is highly unlikely, surely?

What is your "common sense" telling you triggered the alerts, then?

I`m not trying to attach "reasons" to the alerts.

You must feel that something other than cadaver contaminant caused them?

[ferryman]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

That's the link to the article on Thomas quick and zampo,


"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. The dog is just as bad as the rest of them."
if you weren't aware of the case either.

Those are the couple of lines about Zampo, but if you have the time, I found the entire article fascinating.

The entire article is fascinating, but none of it alters or modifies the meaning of the extract about Zampo.

[Cariad]

The entire article is fascinating, but none of it alters or modifies the meaning of the extract about Zampo.

Which is why I never claimed it did. I would like more information, but on the basis of that rather scanty bit from the paper, the most logical reason in my non expert view is handler bias.

I did say that in my first post, the one above the one you quoted.

[ferryman]

Which is why I never claimed it did. I would like more information, but on the basis of that rather scanty bit from the paper, the most logical reason in my non expert view is handler bias.

I did say that in my first post, the one above the one you quoted.

OK.

My opinion as a non expert is that the most likely reason for that large series of uncorroborated alerts is handler cueing.

(Cariad)

[stephen25000]

OK.

My opinion as a non expert is that the most likely reason for that large series of uncorroborated alerts is handler cueing.

(Cariad)

Thanks Mr. Google for that little ditty.

[Carew]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/20/thomas-quick-bergwall-sweden-murder

That's the link to the article on Thomas quick and zampo,


"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. The dog is just as bad as the rest of them."
if you weren't aware of the case either.

Those are the couple of lines about Zampo, but if you have the time, I found the entire article fascinating.

Thanks for the link, Cariad.

[Cariad]

OK.

My opinion as a non expert is that the most likely reason for that large series of uncorroborated alerts is handler cueing.

(Cariad)

Lol, I put it in two posts and you still felt the need to repost it bolded?   

[Alfred R Jones]

What is your "common sense" telling you triggered the alerts, then?

I`m not trying to attach "reasons" to the alerts.

You must feel that something other than cadaver contaminant caused them?

Handler bias.  The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point.  Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert.  That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?

[stephen25000]

Handler bias.  The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point.  Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert.  That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?

For you, YES. >@@(*&)

[Carana]

Handler bias.  The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point.  Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert.  That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?

A very odd story.

Without having gone into this bizarre case further, based on that article, it would seem to be either handler bias (possibly inadvertent) and/or the dog picking up on partial scent (a few of the compounds, but which may have been insignificant in terms of the investigation) with an aim to please.

[Carew]

Handler bias.  The handler had been led to believe (by the accused no less) that each of the places checked by the dog had contained human remains at some point.  Consciously or unconsciously the handler cued the dog to alert.  That would seem the obvious, common-sense explanation, don't you think?

A handler would probably......... both consciously and unconsciously........... know that his reputation depends on accuracy and include the need for corroborative forensics.

Wouldn`t  his "obvious common sense"  make him wonder what would be the point of cuing?