Wandering Off Topic

[barrier]

So someone sent The Police on a wild goose chase?  How does that work?

Do you think they might dig over my vegetable patch?

Do you think it was  done both on a whim then.

[misty]

The met have failed to find anything in the search for Suzy Lamplugh.


"Met finds no evidence in Suzy Lamplugh case after digging up garden"

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/12/met-finds-no-evidence-in-suzy-lamplugh-case-after-digging-up-sutton-coldfield-garden

And not a cadaver dog in sight.....

[Vertigo Swirl]

And not a cadaver dog in sight.....

It does make you wonder why not.  This could all have been done and dusted in the time it took Eddie to search Apt 5a.

[misty]

It does make you wonder why not.  This could all have been done and dusted in the time it took Eddie to search Apt 5a.

Local news said they used GPR & forensic archaeologists. IMO the Met do not currently have full trust in cadaver dogs for uncovering historical human remains.

[Mr Gray]

It does make you wonder why not.  This could all have been done and dusted in the time it took Eddie to search Apt 5a.

They are looking for remains... But not a cadaver dog in sight.... Why

[jassi]

Local news said they used GPR & forensic archaeologists. IMO the Met do not currently have full trust in cadaver dogs for uncovering historical human remains.

I don't see that as a reason for not using them.
When searching for a body, all methods should be employed - findings can be evaluated later.
IMO

[faithlilly]

They are looking for remains... But not a cadaver dog in sight.... Why

They had information to where the body may be buried ?

[G-Unit]

Local news said they used GPR & forensic archaeologists. IMO the Met do not currently have full trust in cadaver dogs for uncovering historical human remains.

We can assume that the police had a reason to believe that there was a body buried in that garden, so they didn't need dog alerts to suggest that to them. What they needed was to try to pinpoint the location. This is difficult using a cadaver dog because scent moves around underground. Hence GPR being used, which van 'see' any anomalies beneath the surface. In my opinion the Met used the correct tool for the job in hand. Had the search area been larger, dogs may well have been used to reduce the search area imo.   

[The General]

I don't see that as a reason for not using them.
When searching for a body, all methods should be employed - findings can be evaluated later.
IMO

Surely the GPR would have confirmed the presence of disturbance in the strata around the area where they were tipped off to look? There would be no requirement for a dog search, on this occasion the technology was deemed acceptable enough to continue to rip the place up.
With or without a dog they would be digging the place up anyway - so no dog required.

[Lace]

Surely the GPR would have confirmed the presence of disturbance in the strata around the area where they were tipped off to look? There would be no requirement for a dog search, on this occasion the technology was deemed acceptable enough to continue to rip the place up.
With or without a dog they would be digging the place up anyway - so no dog required.

A cadaver dog would tell them if a body had been there or not though wouldn't it?

[The General]

A cadaver dog would tell them if a body had been there or not though wouldn't it?

Yes, but my point is, there's little point in bringing the dog in because as soon as they see a disturbance in the strata they were digging anyway. And they would always use the GPR first, dog maybe second. Even if they weren't sure about the GPR results, they were always going to dig, they were duty bound.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s dog had given the garden the once over at the beginning and given no alert then wouldn’t that mean “no cadaver”?  Given that they can detect remains through concrete...

[Mr Gray]

We can assume that the police had a reason to believe that there was a body buried in that garden, so they didn't need dog alerts to suggest that to them. What they needed was to try to pinpoint the location. This is difficult using a cadaver dog because scent moves around underground. Hence GPR being used, which van 'see' any anomalies beneath the surface. In my opinion the Met used the correct tool for the job in hand. Had the search area been larger, dogs may well have been used to reduce the search area imo.

do you have a cite for scent moves around underground..it sounds like a ridiculous suggestion....

[G-Unit]

do you have a cite for scent moves around underground..it sounds like a ridiculous suggestion....

A lot of things sound ridiculous to those with no knowledge of them. It's discussed quite thoroughly by Mark Harrison;

The generation, storage and migration of natural gases and body scent
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

[Mr Gray]

A lot of things sound ridiculous to those with no knowledge of them. It's discussed quite thoroughly by Mark Harrison;

The generation, storage and migration of natural gases and body scent
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm

The scent doesn't move around..... It can follow water drainage obviously.... It can travel through cracks in rock... Obviously... The idea it moves around is ridiculous... This happens in air but not underground... Underground it may follow pathways... That's, what Harrison is, saying