Eddie and Keela and what the alerts meant if anything.

[Robittybob1]

You can try the same thing as many times as you like... According to Einstein that's the definition of insanity

I've got staff issues ATM.  Back later.

[misty]

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

An interesting excerpt from a University paper with input from Grime, which appears to suggest Eddie could not be classed as a human remains detection dog. Therefore anything he alerted do could not be officially classed as human remains imo.

[Mr Gray]

They have been helpful. They have indicated to a team of forensic investigators that there are certain areas where they may find samples of interest. Guess what? That's exactly what they did find! It's  not the dogs fault that the limited FSS methods at the time found the evidence "too complex" to allow for meaningful interpretation.

So at present the samples recovered were of no use...as I have said..

Goodnight

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

So at present the samples recovered were of no use...as I have said..

Goodnight

US forensics expert Dr Mark Perlin may find the samples (or the FSS data) useful. He believes new techniques of DNA analysis will be able to interpret what was "too complex" for the FSS.

[Brietta]

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

An interesting excerpt from a University paper with input from Grime, which appears to suggest Eddie could not be classed as a human remains detection dog. Therefore anything he alerted do could not be officially classed as human remains imo.

Was Morse the real deal and Eddie the experimental prototype?

[misty]

Was Morse the real deal and Eddie the experimental prototype?

From Grime's personal profile, which appears to have been written before he went to Luz in Aug 2007

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
*snipped*
"I also have a six-month old English Springer spaniel dog, puppy, in training, Morse".

So, one handler with 3 dogs. Grime was in Jersey in Feb 2008 for around 3 months with Eddie & Keela, no mention of Morse or his training. Did his initial training also involve the use of decomposing piglets?
It's unclear for how long Grime + dog(s) were in USA working with Stockham on a specialist programme & how many times Morse was deployed on a live exercise prior to the Bianca Jones case.
Was he the real deal? I've no idea, after Stockham described Grime in court as an Animal Behavioural Specialist from the UK.

[Robittybob1]

http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf

An interesting excerpt from a University paper with input from Grime, which appears to suggest Eddie could not be classed as a human remains detection dog. Therefore anything he alerted do could not be officially classed as human remains imo.

As I understand it Eddie was trained on human remains so was a human remains detection dog.  He may have started with pig cadavers but progressed to human remains.

[ShiningInLuz]

As I understand it Eddie was trained on human remains so was a human remains detection dog.  He may have started with pig cadavers but progressed to human remains.

I am not sure that can be wholly true, nor that it matters if it was true.

I understand that human body farms are legal only in the US and latterly Australia.

For UK certification, dogs had to be trained/tested to ACPO standards on a 6 month cycle, which did not use human body parts.

Whilst somewhere or other Grime said that if pork was used to test US dogs trained on human body parts, the dogs all alerted.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

It might be fanciful in your opinion but not in mine... The dogs are trained to find evidence... What good have the alerts been this case... No help whatsoever

Is it the efficacy of all cadaver dogs that you dispute or Eddie specifically?

[Holly Goodhead]

Hi and welcome to the forum Billy Whizz Fan Club

I'm new to this case but have a layperson's understanding of LCN DNA through looking at another case.  You seem pretty knowledgeable, so a couple of questions if I may:

1. The biological samples collected in this case were as a result of the dog alerts?

2. As I understand it LCN is used to amplify small samples of DNA where the source material is unknown ie skin cells, sweat, blood etc?

3. In this case has the biological source been identified or is the assumption blood based on the dog alert? 

4. Given we are all shedding bits and pieces all the time ie skin cells, hair etc if the case involves a stranger abduction from 5A would he/she have left behind some DNA evidence? 

5. If the answer to 3 above is yes this would clearly present problems as he/she would not be the only person depositing DNA in 5A.  Potentially all those who have ever entered 5A would leave a trail of DNA although with time this would degrade to such an extent it would be beyond testing?  Anyhow for it to be useful to investigators it would require a match ie a sample from a suspect or a database?

6. Why do some soc's not yield any DNA eg Dr Lyn and Megan Russell while other similar soc's do eg The Ripper (scarf of a victim)?

Any links to 'DNA for Dummies' or similar would be appreciated.  Thanks
 

[Mr Gray]

Is it the efficacy of all cadaver dogs that you dispute or Eddie specifically?

I don't dispute the efficacy of all detection dogs in general.. Cadaver, drug, explosive etc.  I think they are all valuable tools.  What I dispute is the value humans put on unconfirmed alerts... Because we simply don't know their value.

[Robittybob1]

I don't dispute the efficacy of all detection dogs in general.. Cadaver, drug, explosive etc.  I think they are all valuable tools.  What I dispute is the value humans put on unconfirmed alerts... Because we simply don't know their value.

Well I had a thread discussing what confirms a cadaver dog alert.  Look I can't remember you coming up with an answer.  What would satisfy you that a cadaver dog alert is confirmed?

Would you only be happy if a body or major body part is located at the place where the alert happened?

I see in the White paper Grime defines what he considers confirmation of an alert.  Can't copy it, but it is subsection 8.0 on page 12 titled "Corroboration of VRD Responses.

[Mr Gray]

Well I had a thread discussing what confirms a cadaver dog alert.  Look I can't remember you coming up with an answer.  What would satisfy you that a cadaver dog alert is confirmed?

Would you only be happy if a body or major body part is located at the place where the alert happened?

I see in the White paper Grime defines what he considers confirmation of an alert.  Can't copy it, but it is subsection 8.0 on page 12 titled "Corroboration of VRD Responses.

I did come up with an answer... Martin Grimes answer

As I have said... Grime had now moved the goalposts.
In 2007 he said the alerts had not been confirmed because no remains hard been found... He now seems to have changed his mind.
Grime now says that anecdotal witness statements can corroborate the alerts... Although the degree of corroboration affects the weight of the evidence.

 That us an incredible seismic shift and I believe has been influenced by his experience in the US.... I've got a lot more to say on the topic of Grime and will post it later
He also includes proficiency testing and successful field  missions... It now seems if he says they are corroborated then they are...
Martin Grime.... A man on a mission

[Robittybob1]

Maybe you did, as I say I felt I got nowhere with that thread about corroboration of cadaver alerts.

[Angelo222]

For the sake of clarity, Eddie was an EVRD which meant that his primary role was to find the bodies of victims which by default meant finding evidence. I don't think that can be any clearer?