Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?

[stephen25000]

Whatever it is it is not bone.  Therefore Eddie's 'alert' was wrong.  Therefore Eddie's 'alerts' are unreliable.

If there was collagen found, it's not from a coconut.

[Brietta]

If there was collagen found, it's not from a coconut.

Eddie alerted to an item forensically determined neither to be from a human cadaver or a pig.  Therefore Eddie alerted to something outwith his training parameters.  Therefore all Eddie's 'alerts' are questionable and as a result are unreliable.

[stephen25000]

Eddie alerted to an item forensically determined neither to be from a human cadaver or a pig.  Therefore Eddie alerted to something outwith his training parameters.  Therefore all Eddie's 'alerts' are questionable and as a result are unreliable.

In your expert opinion then ?

Pull the other one.

[Brietta]

In your expert opinion then ?

Pull the other one.

The opinion is not mine.  I did not test the item Eddie mistakenly alerted to.  The deduction that a dog identified as making errors is unreliable stems from using common sense.

[ferryman]

I'm still hunting down, from the report, the exact description of the work done at the Oxford Laboratory on the piece of coconut misidentified as a human skull.

But in the meantime, I've found this:

2.145 A letter from Dr X at the Oxford laboratory was sent on
1 May 2008 addressed to DCO HARPER confirming the work carried out on
Exhibit JAR/6 and the conclusion that it was not bone but almost certainly wood.

[G-Unit]

Eddie alerted to an item forensically determined neither to be from a human cadaver or a pig.  Therefore Eddie alerted to something outwith his training parameters.  Therefore all Eddie's 'alerts' are questionable and as a result are unreliable.

Did Eddie alert to the item or to the area of ground where the item was found? I haven't much knowledge of the Jersey case.

[stephen25000]

The opinion is not mine.  I did not test the item Eddie mistakenly alerted to.  The deduction that a dog identified as making errors is unreliable stems from using common sense.

and you have never heard of secondary transfer or contamination ?

[ferryman]

Did Eddie alert to the item or to the area of ground where the item was found? I haven't much knowledge of the Jersey case.

We know, from the PJ's cribbing of translated literature handed to them by Mark Harrison in the PdL investigation, how a proper search should be conducted.

First you get the dog to reconnoitre an area to ensure that it is free of pre-existing scents.

Next, you introduce, into that area, whatever you want the dog to examine, thereby ensuring that no pre-existing scents interfere with any reaction there may be to the item that is being inspected by the dog.

[slartibartfast]

Did Eddie alert to the item or to the area of ground where the item was found? I haven't much knowledge of the Jersey case.

As we are constantly told, it is for the dog to alert and the police to retrieve samples for forensic examination. Therefore not Eddie's issue.

[Mr Gray]

As we are constantly told, it is for the dog to alert and the police to retrieve samples for forensic examination. Therefore not Eddie's issue.

of course its not eddie's issue...eddie's job is to indicate where to look for evidence...that's it and that's all

[slartibartfast]

of course its not eddie's issue...eddie's job is to indicate where to look for evidence...that's it and that's all

Maybe you should tell your mates.

[carlymichelle]

Maybe you should tell your mates.

didnt eddie find evidence in  5A??    its  not  evidence mcann s and their supporters like but oh  well

[Mr Gray]

Maybe you should tell your mates.

Any one with any sense already knows that
Neither dog found any evidence of any importance

[ferryman]

didnt eddie find evidence in  5A??    its  not  evidence mcann s and their supporters like but oh  well

Eddie found nothing that would have been accepted in an English court.

So it wasn't evidence.

[pegasus]

Eddie found nothing that would have been accepted in an English court.

So it wasn't evidence.

Might not the Portuguese legal system be more relevant?