Wandering Off Topic

[Icanhandlethetruth]

so how do you intepret what Grime said....

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any

'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source

prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute

the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide
intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime.

If you read the actual document from Martin Grime, this has all the correct punctuation and is formatted in a way that is easier to read. The bit about the EVRD is on a separate paragraph that indicates its not expressly linked to the paragraph above. If he wanted to convey the fact that the EVRD dog would alert to diluted blood but the CSI wouldn’t he would surely have carried on the existing paragraph with a comma and then something like “,however the EVRD dog will alert to diluted blood…."
When he refers to the scent source he is referring to the fact Eddie was trained on both blood and cadaver odour so will alert to both.
He is asked the question in the rogatory interview
“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver”
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
He explicitly states that they give an alert for dried blood, not blood that hasn’t dried in situ and been diluted before drying.

[Vertigo Swirl]

If you read the actual document from Martin Grime, this has all the correct punctuation and is formatted in a way that is easier to read. The bit about the EVRD is on a separate paragraph that indicates its not expressly linked to the paragraph above. If he wanted to convey the fact that the EVRD dog would alert to diluted blood but the CSI wouldn’t he would surely have carried on the existing paragraph with a comma and then something like “,however the EVRD dog will alert to diluted blood…."
When he refers to the scent source he is referring to the fact Eddie was trained on both blood and cadaver odour so will alert to both.
He is asked the question in the rogatory interview
“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver”
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
He explicitly states that they give an alert for dried blood, not blood that hasn’t dried in situ and been diluted before drying.

will they give an alert for dried blood from a living human that was once in situ but is no longer?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

will they give an alert for dried blood from a living human that was once in situ but is no longer?

As its dried blood I would guess so.

[Mr Gray]

If you read the actual document from Martin Grime, this has all the correct punctuation and is formatted in a way that is easier to read. The bit about the EVRD is on a separate paragraph that indicates its not expressly linked to the paragraph above. If he wanted to convey the fact that the EVRD dog would alert to diluted blood but the CSI wouldn’t he would surely have carried on the existing paragraph with a comma and then something like “,however the EVRD dog will alert to diluted blood…."
When he refers to the scent source he is referring to the fact Eddie was trained on both blood and cadaver odour so will alert to both.
He is asked the question in the rogatory interview
“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver”
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
He explicitly states that they give an alert for dried blood, not blood that hasn’t dried in situ and been diluted before drying.

I think you need to read it again
Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ
Eddie may detect blood that has been diluted whilst Keela won't..

[Vertigo Swirl]

As its dried blood I would guess so.

That being the case don’t you find it odd that none of the other apartments had ever had any human blood in them?  From a cut, or a nosebleed?  Nothing?  In fact I would say that if a dog really did alert to traces of dried blood that was no longer there, then they’d be more likely to alert in a house than not, IMO.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I think you need to read it again
Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ
Eddie may detect blood that has been diluted whilst Keela won't..

Explain the rogatory answer then.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

That being the case don’t you find it odd that none of the other apartments had ever had any human blood in them?  From a cut, or a nosebleed?  Nothing?  In fact I would say that if a dog really did alert to traces of dried blood that was no longer there, then they’d be more likely to alert in a house than not, IMO.

Was it not the standard procedure to send Eddie in and only if he alerted would they send in Keela.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was it not the standard procedure to send Eddie in and only if he alerted would they send in Keela.

Are you now saying Eddie wouldn’t alert to dried human blood that was no longer in situ then?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Are you now saying Eddie wouldn’t alert to dried human blood that was no longer in situ then?

You do know I was not Eddies trainer or that I have ever trained a cadaver or CSI dog.
Martin Grime testified that Eddie alerts to dried blood so you either believe him or you don't.
It seems you don't.
I could speculate that Keela was more proficient at detecting blood as this was her only function but I don't know that to be a true fact. You really need to find a qualified dog trainer and ask them these questions if you really want to know.

[Mr Gray]

Was it not the standard procedure to send Eddie in and only if he alerted would they send in Keela.

Both dogs alert to blood dried in situ... Only Eddie alerts to blood that has been diluted. So if Maddie had a nosebleed and it was cleaned up its quite possible that Eddie would alert and Keela wouldnt

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Both dogs alert to blood dried in situ... Only Eddie alerts to blood that has been diluted. So if Maddie had a nosebleed and it was cleaned up its quite possible that Eddie would alert and Keela wouldnt

Explain the rogatory answer.

[Mr Gray]

If you read the actual document from Martin Grime, this has all the correct punctuation and is formatted in a way that is easier to read. The bit about the EVRD is on a separate paragraph that indicates its not expressly linked to the paragraph above. If he wanted to convey the fact that the EVRD dog would alert to diluted blood but the CSI wouldn’t he would surely have carried on the existing paragraph with a comma and then something like “,however the EVRD dog will alert to diluted blood…."
When he refers to the scent source he is referring to the fact Eddie was trained on both blood and cadaver odour so will alert to both.
He is asked the question in the rogatory interview
“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver”
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
He explicitly states that they give an alert for dried blood, not blood that hasn’t dried in situ and been diluted before drying.

Here Grime contradicts himself again... He mentions teeth as a source of an alert. In Jersey quite a few deciduous teeth were alerted too... Allegedly. However in his white paper Grime expressly says the cadaver dog is unlikely to alert to teeth

[Mr Gray]

Explain the rogatory answer.

The post you just quoted explains it..
Both dogs alert to blood dried in situ
Eddie may alert when the blood has been diluted by a clean up... Keela wont

[Vertigo Swirl]

You do know I was not Eddies trainer or that I have ever trained a cadaver or CSI dog.
Martin Grime testified that Eddie alerts to dried blood so you either believe him or you don't.
It seems you don't.
I could speculate that Keela was more proficient at detecting blood as this was her only function but I don't know that to be a true fact. You really need to find a qualified dog trainer and ask them these questions if you really want to know.

Ooh, prickly!  I asked my initial question because you seemed to know what you were talking about, sorry for misunderstanding. 

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Here Grime contradicts himself again... He mentions teeth as a source of an alert. In Jersey quite a few deciduous teeth were alerted too... Allegedly. However in his white paper Grime expressly says the cadaver dog is unlikely to alert to teeth

Does it even make sense though, they would have 2 dogs and it is possible that they were trained in such a way that a bark only from the cadaver dog could mean he was alerting to diluted blood that the blood dog wouldn't alert to. Do you have so little faith in the intellect and ability of British police forces that that scenario is even possible.
It beggars belief.