Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 375097 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #735 on: April 09, 2014, 08:35:02 AM »
It is clear that poster bias is ruling out handler bias

So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?

There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

Offline Benice

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #736 on: April 09, 2014, 08:40:35 AM »
So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?

There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

Why have you chosen to ignore this post from John?

« Reply #737 on: April 08, 2014, 05:45:04 PM »Quote
Posters are reminded to discuss the topic and not each other.  TY
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #737 on: April 09, 2014, 08:41:46 AM »
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.

How about two equally unsubtle but very direct links with the McCann case: cuddle-cat, played with but not alerted to -- then hidden and alerted to.

Clothes in the villa -- no interest from the dog -- same clothes in the gym, apparently "alerted to" ...

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #738 on: April 09, 2014, 08:43:05 AM »
Why have you chosen to ignore this post from John?

« Reply #737 on: April 08, 2014, 05:45:04 PM »Quote
Posters are reminded to discuss the topic and not each other.  TY

Is this extended to all parties including you ??? >@@(*&)

davel was making a point on dog handling. It is therefore RELEVANT.

Estuarine

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #739 on: April 09, 2014, 09:55:59 AM »
So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?

There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*

In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #740 on: April 09, 2014, 09:58:12 AM »
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's

You've got it in one Estaurine. @)(++(* 8((()*/ 8((()*/

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #741 on: April 09, 2014, 10:20:36 AM »
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)?

My stance on working dogs in general is that they impress me. A dog's nose is more sensitive than our best scientific equipment. That will change. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have a way of confirming a dog alert and then all these arguments will become obsolete.

I tend towards the belief that a dog will alert to what it was trained to alert to. You've given us an example of a dog that alerted 45 times in 24 locations in which it was believed a body had been, only later to discover that the 'murderer' was lying.

As far as I can see the only real explanations for that is that:
 A, the dog was somehow being unconsciously cued by the handler
 B, the murderer was actually telling the truth the first time around and lying on his recantation.
 C, By coincidence those locations were the scene of a crime and cadaver was left there.

C is too much of a coincidence for me. I am (to my detriment) unable to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so C is off my list.

B is possible, but from the article it would appear to be highly unlikely. More likely than C, but still a very outside chance, so I'm left with A.

Does believing that handler bias is the most likely cause in this case mean that all working dogs should immediately be retired?  That we should dismiss the experiments that have proved their accuracy? that the bodies, bombs, drugs etc that have been discovered by these dogs should be put back and dismissed as coincidence?

Again, that isn't a logical step to take. Accepting that mistakes can happen doesn't mean that mistakes always happen.

All the alerts in the Zampo case were uncorroborated apparently. That is not the case for Eddie and Keela. There were human materials found in locations that were alerted to. That could be  a coincidence, but so could Zampo happening across cadaver from other crimes, so without further information, it's probably best to assume coincidence is unlikely.

I would love more information about Zampo. From the bit of research I did yesterday, I found that his trainer is still working and that Zampo successfully alerted to 2000 year old remains (links supplied in last nights post) I would really like to hear what his trainer has to say about it all. 


Edited to add, all IMNEO
« Last Edit: April 09, 2014, 10:44:53 AM by Cariad »

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #742 on: April 09, 2014, 10:23:19 AM »
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's

We have at least one poster who is of the opinion that dogs think and sense things as humans do. Not even read Spot the dog, let alone Janet and John's guide to EVRD's.

Offline Benice

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #743 on: April 09, 2014, 10:27:11 AM »
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's

IMO The only 'skills' required to understand Grime's statements and the knowlege/ information he gives us about his dogs is to be able to read and have a reasonable level of intelligence.    It's not quantum physics - it's dog training/handling being described and explained by an expert - who in this case is M. Grime.

Before I took an interest in the McCann case I knew next to nothing about sniffer dogs.  Now - thanks to M.Grime and other articles I have read - I believe I now have an elementary knowledge of the subject.

Don't you think you have?

 

The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #744 on: April 09, 2014, 10:40:41 AM »
My stance on working dogs in general is that they impress me. A dog's nose is more sensitive than our best scientific equipment. That will change. One day, probably in the not too distant future, we will have a way of confirming a dog alert and then all these arguments will become obsolete.

I tend towards the belief that a dog will alert to what it was trained to alert to. You've given us an example of a dog that alerted 45 times in 24 locations in which it was believed a body had been, only later to discover that the 'murderer' was lying.

As far as I can see the only real explanations for that is that:
 A, the dog was somehow being unconsciously cued by the handler
 B, the murderer was actually telling the truth the first time around and lying on his recantation.
 C, By coincidence those locations were the scene of a crime and cadaver was left there.

C is too much of a coincidence for me. I am (to my detriment) unable to believe six impossible things before breakfast, so C is off my list.

B is possible, but from the article it would appear to be highly unlikely. More likely than C, but still a very outside chance, so I'm left with A.

Does believing that handler bias is the most likely cause in this case mean that all working dogs should immediately be retired?  That we should dismiss the experiments that have proved their accuracy? that the bodies, bombs, drugs etc that have been discovered by these dogs should be put back and dismissed as coincidence?

Again, that isn't a logical step to take. Accepting that mistakes can happen doesn't mean that mistakes always happen.

All the alerts in the Zampo case were uncorroborated apparently. That is not the case for Eddie and Keela. There were human materials found in locations that were alerted to. That could be  a coincidence, but so could Zampo happening across cadaver from other crimes, so without further information, it's probably best to assume coincidence is unlikely.

I would love more information about Zampo. From the bit of research I did yesterday, I found that his trainer is still working and that Zampo successfully alerted to 2000 year old remains (links supplied in last nights post) I would really like to hear what his trainer has to say about it all.


have you attended a t least a one day course on EVRD dogs.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #745 on: April 09, 2014, 10:43:22 AM »
In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's

this has to rank as one of the most stupid posts ever...many of us have more than a basic knowledge of many subjects....but have never attended a one day course....I'm just blown away by the rank stupidity of the statement

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #746 on: April 09, 2014, 10:44:18 AM »

have you attended a t least a one day course on EVRD dogs.

Gah!!! I forgot to add 'in my non expert opinion'!!! Hereafter to be abbreviated as imneo....


Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #747 on: April 09, 2014, 10:46:45 AM »
So you are an expert now on 'handling dogs' ?

There is no end to your talents. @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
..

yesterday an elementary knowledge was acceptable...today you want expert level...but of course that only applies to me...not other posters...that's the bias estuarine was referring to yesterday

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #748 on: April 09, 2014, 10:55:26 AM »
Gah!!! I forgot to add 'in my non expert opinion'!!! Hereafter to be abbreviated as imneo....

I'm going to arrange some one day courses on...
EVRD dogs
Dna
Basic detective work
Libel Law
an introduction to Portuguese law
How to post on forums...quote features etc


Anyone interested send me  a pm


Offline sadie

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #749 on: April 09, 2014, 11:00:25 AM »
How about two equally unsubtle but very direct links with the McCann case: cuddle-cat, played with but not alerted to -- then hidden and alerted to.

Clothes in the villa -- no interest from the dog -- same clothes in the gym, apparently "alerted to" ...
Plus the fact that cCat was hidden in a very slightly open cupboard.   Eddie sniffed twice close, right past it and then alerted to a pile of ?folders or a sheet of paper on top of the pile. 

Seems they must have been cross contaminated.  I prefer to think that, rather than they may have been deliberately contaminated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qG21K6XJRg

@3.41 and 3.52 particularly. 

Martin is mistaken in thinking that Eddie alerted to Ccat.  He clearly alerted to something on the top of the counter, the pile of ?folders or the loose sheet of paper?  NOT cCat.  How were these papers/ folders cross contaminated?