Have the dog alerts any significance?

[Mr Gray]

Actually, in investigative circles an alert by a cadaver or a CSI dog is deemed to be evidence but as you have correctly pointed out on many occasions, without corroboration they have no evidential reliability.

evidence of what john

[John]

evidence of what john

Do dog handlers testify at trials?

[ferryman]

Do dog handlers testify at trials?

They certainly do in America

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id421.htm

[Mr Gray]

Actually, in investigative circles an alert by a cadaver or a CSI dog is deemed to be evidence but as you have correctly pointed out on many occasions, without corroboration they have no evidential reliability. I hasten to add that evidence can take many forms and on its own does not constitute proof of anything.

what you are claiming seems very subjective.......a bunch of dog handlers sitting round saying i think my dogs right but i have no real evidence he is....

[Mr Gray]

Do dog handlers testify at trials?

#no they dont because the alerts are not deemed to be reliable and their is no independent verification to say they are. I would say based on the available evidence taht none of the alerts in pdl related to maddie

[Robittybob1]

they are not evidence...what you are saying is totally untrue

They can be used as evidence, like the dog handler is aware the dog alerted and when and where this occurred.

[Robittybob1]

what you are claiming seems very subjective.......a bunch of dog handlers sitting round saying i think my dogs right but i have no real evidence he is....

Training and reliability comes into it.  Some dogs might be unreliable, but Martin claims Eddie was very reliable.

OK I agree with Davel - this does not point to Madeleine.  The alert does not have a name on it.  Unless you are willing to allow for another cadaver though it gets real tricky to explain it in your own mind.

[Robittybob1]

He may have answered the question previously.  The dog alerts don't confirm anything.  It is a matter of training and reliability.  So it would be given a rating of certainty or probability, which may be as high as 90% in the case of Eddie, 60% in the case of some other dogs (e.g. the unreliable ones Gerry had read about).

[stephen25000]

He may have answered the question previously.  The dog alerts don't confirm anything.  It is a matter of training and reliability.  So it would be given a rating of certainty or probability, which may be as high as 90% in the case of Eddie, 60% in the case of some other dogs (e.g. the unreliable ones Gerry had read about).

Have we ever had a cite for the source of G. Mccann's unreliability of forensic dogs ?

Or is it something Mccann made up ???

[Robittybob1]

Have we ever had a cite for the source of G. Mccann's unreliability of forensic dogs ?

Or is it something Mccann made up ???

I've seen it quoted as an American study that the reliability was as low as 70%. it was raised in the Zapota case.  I think it was Richard Hall that discusses it.

[stephen25000]

I've seen it quoted as an American study that the reliability was as low as 70%. it was raised in the Zapota case.  I think it was Richard Hall that discusses it.

A comprehensive analysis would need top be  made, to discuss how effective dogs are in these circumstances.

However, bottom line.

The dogs will do what they are trained to do, and do not have an agenda.

[G-Unit]

Have we ever had a cite for the source of G. Mccann's unreliability of forensic dogs ?

Or is it something Mccann made up ???

I find it quite amusing to read Kate's comments. She describes herself and her husband as;

Gerry and I are scientists by inclination and profession [Madeleine]

She comments on the dog searches;

This was not what I would call an exact science.[Madeleine]

Firstly, medicine is not an exact science either, so she and her husband are not scientists by profession.
Secondly, how could using dogs be an exact science anyway?

Some doctors are scientists—just as some politicians are scientists—but most are not.
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7454/0.9

[Robittybob1]

I find it quite amusing to read Kate's comments. She describes herself and her husband as;

Gerry and I are scientists by inclination and profession [Madeleine]

She comments on the dog searches;

This was not what I would call an exact science.[Madeleine]

Firstly, medicine is not an exact science either, so she and her husband are not scientists by profession.
Secondly, how could using dogs be an exact science anyway?

Some doctors are scientists—just as some politicians are scientists—but most are not.
http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7454/0.9

What are you getting at?

[stephen25000]

Medicine is not static, it is on a learning curve.

The statement by Gerry Mccann as regards the dogs is quite laughable.

Dogs are used all around the world in a variety of locations and for a variety of different services.

[Robittybob1]

Medicine is not static, it is on a learning curve.

The statement by Gerry Mccann as regards the dogs is quite laughable.

Dogs are used all around the world in a variety of locations and for a variety of different services.

An amazing study was done in NZ by a farmer.  He recorded dog barks and learned how to talk back to the dogs in their own language and he was able to tell them what to do and then let them go and do it. 
It was a lot easier than having to whistle at them all the time.