Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[Alfred R Jones]

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?

Well in this case the handler with his dog was simply attemting to corroborate what the accused was already admitting (consciously or unconsciously of course).  Had it never come to light that Quick was a fantasist then the dog alerts would never have been challenged presumably. 

[Carew]

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.

I feel that the dog may have alerted to what it had been trained to detect...........

To assume a "false alert" because the particular cadaver being searched for turned out to be absent is not quite right.

[Alfred R Jones]

I feel that the dog may have alerted to what it had been trained to detect...........

To assume a "false alert" because the particular cadaver being searched for turned out to be absent is not quite right.

The dog alerted 45 times in 24 locations.  Do you feel that each alert signified that a body or body part must have been present in each location?

[Cariad]

The dog alerted 45 times in 24 locations.  Do you feel that each alert signified that a body or body part must have been present in each location?

See, without further information, I'm with you one this one. It would be a coincidence the magnitude of an intruder entering 5A, killing Madeleine, removing her body and a cadaver dog falsely alerting 11 times in her last known location.

In other words, it stretches my imagination to breaking point.

[Carew]

Well in this case the handler with his dog was simply attemting to corroborate what the accused was already admitting - consciously or unconsciously of course.  Had it never come to light that Quick was a fantasist then the dog alerts would never have been challenged presumably.

The "cued" dog alerts would not have been corroborated with forensic samples, though....

It`s a bit of a leap to presume that the dog alerts would remain unchallenged with no forensics to back them......... A confession could fall apart at any time.....................

How would the alerts corroborate what the accused was admitting without forensics?

Cuing wouldn`t put the forensics there.

[Alfred R Jones]

See, without further information, I'm with you one this one. It would be a coincidence the magnitude of an intruder entering 5A, killing Madeleine, removing her body and a cadaver dog falsely alerting 11 times in her last known location.

In other words, it stretches my imagination to breaking point.

If you can accept unconscious handler bias in one case then why not another?

[Alfred R Jones]

The "cued" dog alerts would not have been corroborated with forensic samples, though....

It`s a bit of a leap to presume that the dog alerts would remain unchallenged with no forensics to back them......... A confession could fall apart at any time.....................

How would the alerts corroborate what the accused was admitting without forensics?

Cuing wouldn`t put the forensics there.

The accused went to prison for years despite the lack of any corroborating evidence.

[Carew]

The dog alerted 45 times in 24 locations.  Do you feel that each alert signified that a body or body part must have been present in each location?

We have no way of knowing what contaminants possibly triggered the alerts........or from where or whence they came.

What you seem to be angling for is an acceptance of handler cuing.........thereby leading to the very unsubtle link with the McCann case.



 

[Cariad]

If you can accept unconscious handler bias in one case then why not another?

I never said I couldn't. If you're referring to the Mccann case though, there were materials located in some of the places the dogs alerted. We don't have the science yet to say that it was blood, but we do know it was human fluid and a blood dog has alerted there, so logically, it would be safe to assume that the dog alerted to what it was trained to alert to and it wasn't just a happy coincidence that the doggy went woof woof where someone had taken a crap behind the sofa, or whatever.

[Carew]

The accused went to prison for years despite the lack of any corroborating evidence.

We cannot assume that the dog`s alerts were triggered by cuing. We do not know what remnant contaminants were present at the sites.

[Alfred R Jones]

We have no way of knowing what contaminants possibly triggered the alerts........or from where or whence they came.

What you seem to be angling for is an acceptance of handler cuing.........thereby leading to the very unsubtle link with the McCann case.

The question posed by this thread is are victim detection and forensic evidence search dogs reliable?  On the basis of the Thomas Quick example alone one would surely have to conclude not always, unless you believe it's probable or even possible that Zampo's alerts were all triggered by human remains. 

[Alfred R Jones]

I never said I couldn't. If you're referring to the Mccann case though, there were materials located in some of the places the dogs alerted. We don't have the science yet to say that it was blood, but we do know it was human fluid and a blood dog has alerted there, so logically, it would be safe to assume that the dog alerted to what it was trained to alert to and it wasn't just a happy coincidence that the doggy went woof woof where someone had taken a crap behind the sofa, or whatever.

I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another.  Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?

[slartibartfast]

I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another.  Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?

I wasn't aware anyone had confessed to killing Maddie in 5a?

[Alfred R Jones]

I wasn't aware anyone had confessed to killing Maddie in 5a?

Me neither.

[Mr Gray]

I don't understand why you would say it is safe to assume the dog alerted to a cadaver in one instance but not in another.  Why can we rule out handler bias in the McCann case, in your view (if that is indeed your view)?

It is clear that poster bias is ruling out handler bias