Do the sceptics simply misunderstand the evidence

[Mr Gray]

I accept your answers 2 and 3 but answer number 1 simply won't do I'm afraid.  You have made a claim that our understanding of dog alerts (inasmuch as how they affect the direction of an investigation, as per the NPIA report which is what we were discussing and which you rejected for being out of date) will have moved on, but that is only your belief and with no report cited, I'm afraid it has to remain just that -  a belief. 
Going back to point 3 I have no idea if the furniture has been tested since the case was closed the first time, but have no reason to believe it was in 2007-2008.  Do we know if it was the same furniture in situ when the investigation re-opened in 2013, and if it was wouldn't the fact that dozens if not hundreds of people had used it since make a nonsense of any such test?

It would have taken only one, pj officer who had been in contact with a corpse in his, uniform to have contaminated the whole if 5a

[faithlilly]

I accept your answers 2 and 3 but answer number 1 simply won't do I'm afraid.  You have made a claim that our understanding of dog alerts (inasmuch as how they affect the direction of an investigation, as per the NPIA report which is what we were discussing and which you rejected for being out of date) will have moved on, but that is only your belief and with no report cited, I'm afraid it has to remain just that -  a belief. 
Going back to point 3 I have no idea if the furniture has been tested since the case was closed the first time, but have no reason to believe it was in 2007-2008.  Do we know if it was the same furniture in situ when the investigation re-opened in 2013, and if it was wouldn't the fact that dozens if not hundreds of people had used it since make a nonsense of any such test?

Not entirely sure I care whether my first answer will do. It's simply common sense.

As to the furniture being the cause of the alerts can I refer you to my previous answers.

Edit : removed insult.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Not entirely sure I care whether my first answer will do. It's simply common sense.

As to the furniture being the cause of the alerts can I refer you to my previous answers.

I understand that "common sense" won't do as a cite and that despite your claims that the NPIA report has been superseded and is therefore out of date, you have provided nothing to back this up.  Therefore as you have posted nothing to refute the NPIA findings that sniffer dogs can adversely effect the outcome of a police investigation I think it safe to say that their's is still a valid conclusion, and in fact is more valid than yours.   

[Mr Gray]

Not entirely sure I care whether my first answer will do. It's simply common sense.

As to the furniture being the cause of the alerts can I refer you to my previous answers.

Edit : removed insult.

All this could be, easily settled if you posted, some of the many cases, you know of..... It seems, that is another of your claims, that has no credibility

[faithlilly]

I understand that "common sense" won't do as a cite and that despite your claims that the NPIA report has been superseded and is therefore out of date, you have provided nothing to back this up.  Therefore as you have posted nothing to refute the NPIA findings that sniffer dogs can adversely effect the outcome of a police investigation I think it safe to say that their's is still a valid conclusion, and in fact is more valid than yours.

Yet again you misquote me ( Delete) I didn't say the NPIA report had been superseded I said that in all probably the knowledge surrounding the work of the dogs would have moved forward. As the use of dogs are now seen more than ever in cases of missing people, Tia Sharpe, April Jones and the recent searches in Greece for Ben Needham to name but three, it would be logical to suppose the problems identified in the 2011 report  had been partly if not fully resolved.

 In fact the use of cadaver dogs in PDL by OG recently suggests they recently know their value.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Yet again you misquote me ( Delete) I didn't say the NPIA report had been superseded I said that in all probably the knowledge surrounding the work of the dogs would have moved forward. As the use of dogs are now seen more than ever in cases of missing people, Tia Sharpe, April Jones and the recent searches in Greece for Ben Needham to name but three, it would be logical to suppose the problems identified in the 2011 report  had been partly if not fully resolved.

 In fact the use of cadaver dogs in PDL by OG recently suggests they recently know their value.

Any problems now fully resolved since 2011 would have no bearing whatsoever on any problems present in 2007. 

[Mr Gray]

Yet again you misquote me ( Delete ) I didn't say the NPIA report had been superseded I said that in all probably the knowledge surrounding the work of the dogs would have moved forward. As the use of dogs are now seen more than ever in cases of missing people, Tia Sharpe, April Jones and the recent searches in Greece for Ben Needham to name but three, it would be logical to suppose the problems identified in the 2011 report  had been partly if not fully resolved.

 In fact the use of cadaver dogs in PDL by OG recently suggests they recently know their value.

they certainly do know and understand their value....as do I...their value is in the evidence they find

[Mr Gray]

This is 2014.....

Cadaver dogs 'are an incredible investigatory tool - no question about it,' says Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor and chairman of the department of sciences at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Certainly, he says, they can help uncover valuable evidence in criminal cases - a body, or bones or maybe clothing.

But he is among those who doesn't think the dogs' alerts and subsequent tests of soil and air where should be admissible in court, at least not yet.

'What we need to do is strengthen the science,' Kobilinksy says.

And even in investigations, dogs alerting is often just the first step in what can be a lengthy, sometimes fruitless endeavor.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2801234/buster-ed-cadaver-dog-helped-track-remains-200-people.html#ixzz5A8I2KmTY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




yet more confirmation of what grime and Harrison said

[faithlilly]

Any problems now fully resolved since 2011 would have no bearing whatsoever on any problems present in 2007.

However the 2011 report did not say the dog alerts were unreliable, in fact the exact opposite. So all good.

[slartibartfast]

I understand that "common sense" won't do as a cite and that despite your claims that the NPIA report has been superseded and is therefore out of date, you have provided nothing to back this up.  Therefore as you have posted nothing to refute the NPIA findings that sniffer dogs can adversely effect the outcome of a police investigation I think it safe to say that their's is still a valid conclusion, and in fact is more valid than yours.

Unless you are claiming that in all fields of human endeavour the only one that hasn’t progress one iota is the study of sniffer dogs, then I think the common sense argument is a valid logical approach.

[John]

Posters are cordially reminded that certain conduct is unacceptable on this forum so please ensure posts are amicable and relevant before confirming your post.  Your cooperation will make the moderators job so much easier. Thank you.

[Mr Gray]

Unless you are claiming that in all fields of human endeavour the only one that hasn’t progress one iota is the study of sniffer dogs, then I think the common sense argument is a valid logical approach.

You may think so ...I dont. What evidence is there? Pythagoaras Theorem is just as avlid today as it was over 2000 years ago. To make a claim and say its supported by common sense is not a valid approach imo

progression is made by scientific reseach......there doesnt seem to have been any with cadaver dogs that have moved things forward

[faithlilly]

This is 2014.....

Cadaver dogs 'are an incredible investigatory tool - no question about it,' says Lawrence Kobilinsky, professor and chairman of the department of sciences at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Certainly, he says, they can help uncover valuable evidence in criminal cases - a body, or bones or maybe clothing.

But he is among those who doesn't think the dogs' alerts and subsequent tests of soil and air where should be admissible in court, at least not yet.

'What we need to do is strengthen the science,' Kobilinksy says.

And even in investigations, dogs alerting is often just the first step in what can be a lengthy, sometimes fruitless endeavor.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2801234/buster-ed-cadaver-dog-helped-track-remains-200-people.html#ixzz5A8I2KmTY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




yet more confirmation of what grime and Harrison said

So it appears things have moved on in the last decade, in America at least.

'Local police departments have been reluctant to use the cadaver dogs for searches because their trainers are volunteers, but that's been changing, as the dogs' training has become more standardized in the last decade - and as they've helped solve more cases.'

[Vertigo Swirl]

Unless you are claiming that in all fields of human endeavour the only one that hasn’t progress one iota is the study of sniffer dogs, then I think the common sense argument is a valid logical approach.

Is it logical to say that dog alerts now no longer adversely effect the outcome of police investigations?  In other words what advancements have been made to ensure that a dog no longer alerts to a piece of furniture that has the been contaminated  by a dead body that has no relevance to the case under investigation?  And in any case what have any supposed advancements since 2011 got to do with alerts that took place in 2007?

[Mr Gray]

So it appears things have moved on in the last decade, in America at least.

'Local police departments have been reluctant to use the cadaver dogs for searches because their trainers are volunteers, but that's been changing, as the dogs' training has become more standardized in the last decade - and as they've helped solve more cases.'

you would need to understand how they have helped to solve cases....common sense would say by finding evidence..

the eminent professor confirms taht the alerts themselves should not be pesented in court as evidence