Have the dog alerts any significance?

[barrier]

they are suggesting 2 or more teams....why would tehy be suggesting that if these dogs are so reliable

Is the mentioned paper the foremost paper on Cadaver alerts?

[slartibartfast]

Actually, a cite is demanded and I can (now) provide one.

The Hamburg carpet-square experiment is (unwisely) trumpeted by aficionados of Grime and his work, even though it is scarcely helpful to Mr Grime since that was an experiment driven by the principle of cross-contamination, ignored by Grime at PdL (I digress).

From that report comes this:

In that experiment, a number of dogs were used, each dog having its own handler.

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Oesterhelweg%201998.pdf

So no cites for your statement then.

[barrier]

Many times its written that Cadaver alerts take 90 min's from death,in the paper quoted by ferryman they answer with this.

The most interesting question of all remains: that of how long must an individual be dead for his /her scent to be detectable by a
trained cadaver dog ? Answering this pertinent question was not part of our investigation, but we can point out that a postmortem
interval of 2 h seems to be a safely recognizable interval for the detection of deceased tissue by trained cadaver dogs

So where does the 90 mins come from? which paper?

[ferryman]

Many times its written that Cadaver alerts take 90 min's from death,in the paper quoted by ferryman they answer with this.

So where does the 90 mins come from? which paper?

The original study (which I have read, and would need to find again), I think, stated a soonest time of response of 90 minutes; but a typical, or average, time of two to three hours.

[Mr Gray]

Is the mentioned paper the foremost paper on Cadaver alerts?

there is almost no scientific eveidence behind the alerts...they simply have not been investigated...thats why they cannot be accepted as reliable evidence

[ShiningInLuz]

there is almost no scientific eveidence behind the alerts...they simply have not been investigated...thats why they cannot be accepted as reliable evidence

In the multiplicity of dog threads on this forum there have been numerous cited references to scientific evidence behind dog alerts.

That is not the reason why they are not accepted as evidence in court without forensic support.

[Mr Gray]

In the multiplicity of dog threads on this forum there have been numerous cited references to scientific evidence behind dog alerts.

That is not the reason why they are not accepted as evidence in court without forensic support.

There are almost no scientific studies to support the alerts
If there were these could be cited in court and used in evidence
They do not exist

They are not accepted in court because as evidence they are unreliable

[ShiningInLuz]

There are almost no scientific studies to support the alerts
If there were these could be cited in court and used in evidence
They do not exist

There are dozens, probably hundreds.

You cannot cite a study in a court room, then make the leap to asserting that an alert on its own is evidence that meets the standard required by a court, because it doesn't.

[Mr Gray]

There are dozens, probably hundreds.

You cannot cite a study in a court room, then make the leap to asserting that an alert on its own is evidence that meets the standard required by a court, because it doesn't.

There are not dozens or probably hundreds
Where are they
I've been posting reviews the dogs for 10 yrs and have only seen two
I have not cited any study in a court room
Gerry was right re the science behind the alerts
There is none

[Mr Gray]

There are dozens, probably hundreds.

You cannot cite a study in a court room, then make the leap to asserting that an alert on its own is evidence that meets the standard required by a court, because it doesn't.

So could you provide a cite for these dozens or hundreds of scientific studies which support the alerts

[ShiningInLuz]

There are not dozens or probably hundreds
Where are they
I've been posting reviews the dogs for 10 yrs and have only seen two
I have not cited any study in a court room
Gerry was right re the science behind the alerts
There is none

"If there were these could be cited in court and used in evidence" is where you raised the idea that studies could be cited in court and used as evidence.

Tell you what - give the cites for the only two studies you have seen and we can take it from there.  Scientific studies always daisy-chain in the journals.

"Gerry was right re the science behind the alerts"?  Did he get that information from scientific studies?  Surely you are not claiming he fabricated it?

[ShiningInLuz]

So could you provide a cite for these dozens or hundreds of scientific studies which support the alerts

I don't need to.

I have made clear that such studies exist, but that is insufficient for a court to accept them as evidence, in the absence of supporting evidence.

You made a bald assertion about the absence of such studies.  I am simply flagging up for anyone interested in the dogs that this is incorrect.

Anyone interested in the topic should be smart enough to work out that your bald assertion has been challenged.  So anyone interested in the topic can do their own digging.  I am not interested in the topic.  And I do not intend acting as someone's research assistant.

[Mr Gray]

I don't need to.

I have made clear that such studies exist, but that is insufficient for a court to accept them as evidence, in the absence of supporting evidence.

You made a bald assertion about the absence of such studies.  I am simply flagging up for anyone interested in the dogs that this is incorrect.

Anyone interested in the topic should be smart enough to work out that your bald assertion has been challenged.  So anyone interested in the topic can do their own digging.  I am not interested in the topic.  And I do not intend acting as someone's research assistant.

You have not made it clear such studies exist
You have made a claim that they do but have not supplied any evidence they do
That makes your claim simply your opinion and you are totally wrong

[Mr Gray]

"If there were these could be cited in court and used in evidence" is where you raised the idea that studies could be cited in court and used as evidence.

Tell you what - give the cites for the only two studies you have seen and we can take it from there.  Scientific studies always daisy-chain in the journals.

"Gerry was right re the science behind the alerts"?  Did he get that information from scientific studies?  Surely you are not claiming he fabricated it?

Your claim is false
There are not any number of scientific studies

Gerry got that information from the lack of scientific studies

[ferryman]

Many times its written that Cadaver alerts take 90 min's from death,in the paper quoted by ferryman they answer with this.

So where does the 90 mins come from? which paper?

Found it:

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.