Have the dog alerts any significance?

[sadie]

Keela was trained to alert to dried blood, whether from the living or deceased.

Thank you misty.  Seems that I was wrong on that one.

My apologies stephen


BUT as misty says, Keela was necessary because she was used to rule iout the blood element of Eddies alerts.


Despite this, we have the likelyhood that the deceased Grandpas pyjamas and ashes would have been brought home to 5A and the most suitable places for storing them would have been in the part which is least used  i.e. bottom of the wardrobe away from the bedroom door,
... or if they gave comfort to the widow, as close to where she lay in bed as possible, where she could touch them


But having seen Eddies erratic performance in mistys video, no Court could consider his barking up that corner as any pointer at all.

And NO forensics, which were absolutely necessary to confirm Eddies alert.  Was this because there was nothing there to take for forensics ?


Time to re-assess stephen.  You are intelligent, but you are burying your head in the sand over this one.

Nigh Night

[stephen25000]

Thank you misty.  Seems that I was wrong on that one.

My apologies stephen


BUT as misty says, Keela was necessary because she was used to rule iout the blood element of Eddies alerts.


Despite this, we have the likelyhood that the deceased Grandpas pyjamas and ashes would have been brought home to 5A and the most suitable places for storing them would have been in the part which is least used  i.e. bottom of the wardrobe away from the bedroom door,
... or if they gave comfort to the widow, as close to where she lay in bed as possible, where she could touch them


But having seen Eddies erratic petrformance in mistys video, no Court could consider his barking up that corner as any pointer at all.

And NO forensics, which were absolutely necessary to confirm Eddies alert.  Was this because there was nothing there to take for forensics ?


Time to re-assess stephen.  You are intelligent but you are burying your head in the sand over this one.

Nigh Night

Apology accepted.

However, we will have to agree to disagree.

[slartibartfast]

Cant you be bothered to read my posts or the posts by ferryman, stephen ?  It has all been proved many times before with documentation, but just for you:

It was shown, with cites, in a previous thread, probably by ferryman that Keelas input was essential to check out Eddies alerts ... and to decide whether Eddie was alerting to blood (Edited) or alerting to cadaver odour.

Despite all the claimed alerts to cadaver odour in 5A, the truth is that in only one place [in the wardrobe, or just outside it by the head of the bed], was there anything that could have been cadaver odour.   

However, likewise (i) it could have been dead pig cadaver odour, because Eddie was trained on pig.   Once trained a dog is always going to alert to the scent of dead pig, even if it is cooked pork or bacon.  He cannot be detrained.

Or it could have been that (ii) Eddie was having an erratic moment and barked for the sake of it,  See mistys video.

I have proved this over and over on this very thread.  Do please read my posts properly in future, stephen



Oh, I nearly forgot, forensic evidence was necessary to back up any possible alerts.  There was NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE that backed them

Not cooked pork or bacon either, misty?

[Mr Gray]

The dogs were trained in specific disciplines were they not,the dogs alerted,whats there to cite,its all on film.

The film is heavily edited
If the alerts were reliable then why doesn't Grime say so
Because they are not reliable
They have never been properly independently tested
Where is the evidence that every alert is reliable

[Mr Gray]

In the rogs Grime is asked twice if the alerts are confirmation of the alerts
He dodges the question on both occasions

[Mr Gray]

Grime said they alerted.
Davel said they didn't.

I wonder whose opinion carries more weight?

Grime has not said the dog alerted to cadaver
So in that I am in agreement with him

[Mr Gray]

Grime is totally free to say that in his opinion the alerts were due to cadaver odour
He has never ever said that
Point proved

[Robittybob1]

Grime is totally free to say that in his opinion the alerts were due to cadaver odour
He has never ever said that
Point proved

He said something equivalent.  Grimes used the words "trained to find" and Eddie was "trained to find" decomposed human remains ie cadaver odour

[slartibartfast]

In the rogs Grime is asked twice if the alerts are confirmation of the alerts
He dodges the question on both occasions

?

[stephen25000]

' My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence. '

' The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.'

' The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication. '

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Robittybob1]

?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7855.msg376626#msg376626
In which document, was it this one?  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

"'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes."

That doesn't even make sense. [When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.]

"Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

"'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

'With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver'
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog."

Both those were ruses performed by the PJ no wonder he couldn't give an answer.

"'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them."

Every answer is spot on as far as I understand it.

[G-Unit]

Cant you be bothered to read my posts or the posts by ferryman, stephen ?  It has all been proved many times before with documentation, but just for you:

It was shown, with cites, in a previous thread, probably by ferryman that Keelas input was essential to check out Eddies alerts ... and to decide whether Eddie was alerting to blood (Edited) or alerting to cadaver odour.

Despite all the claimed alerts to cadaver odour in 5A, the truth is that in only one place [in the wardrobe, or just outside it by the head of the bed], was there anything that could have been cadaver odour.   

However, likewise (i) it could have been dead pig cadaver odour, because Eddie was trained on pig.   Once trained a dog is always going to alert to the scent of dead pig, even if it is cooked pork or bacon.  He cannot be detrained.

Or it could have been that (ii) Eddie was having an erratic moment and barked for the sake of it,  See mistys video.

I have proved this over and over on this very thread.  Do please read my posts properly in future, stephen



Oh, I nearly forgot, forensic evidence was necessary to back up any possible alerts.  There was NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE that backed them

Why do you persist in saying that Eddie would alert to cooked meats Sadie? It's clearly untrue and just causes confusion. Unless that's the intention, of course?

The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat eating bacon sandwiches.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[stephen25000]

A reminder.

No alerts were made to any other materials/properties other than relating to the McCann's.

[Mr Gray]

' My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence. '

' The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication.'

' The odour target of cadaver is scientifically explained through 'volatile organic
compounds' that in a certain configuration are received by the dog as a
receptor. Recognition then gives a conditioned response 'ALERT'. Despite
considerable research and analytical investigation the compounds cannot as
yet be replicated in laboratory processes. Therefore the 'alert' by dogs without
a tangible source cannot be forensically proven at this time. Cadaver scent
cannot readily be removed by cleaning as the compounds adhere to surfaces.
The scent can be 'masked' by bleach and other strong smelling odours but
the dog's olfactory system is able to isolate the odours and identify specific
compounds' and mixes. Cadaver scent contamination may be transferred in
numerous scenarios. Any contact with a cadaver which is then passed to any
other material may be recognised by the dog causing a 'trigger' indication. '

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

He says his opinion is that the alerts are suggestive
Not that they are
Thanks for supplying the link

[Robittybob1]

A reminder.

No alerts were made to any other materials/properties other than relating to the McCann's.

You made an error again Grime said "He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects."  So even though what you said is true in that all the alerts are on the McCann associated properties "it does not identify suspects".