Is this another example of a potentially crucial error by the VRD handler?

[Sunny]

This cite appears to say that cadaver dogs can scent cadaver as early as after 1 hour 25 minutes (after death). 

Below is snipped from test results. It is worth reading the rest IMO.


TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
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.

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

[Vertigo Swirl]

This cite appears to say that cadaver dogs can scent cadaver as early as after 1 hour 25 minutes (after death). 

Below is snipped from test results. It is worth reading the rest IMO.


TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
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.

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

SOunds like a bit of a one off, but nonetheless point taken - the consensus suggests 2.5-3 hours, and I wonder were these tests conducted within hours of the samples taken of the deceased or three months after the samples had been taken?

[jassi]

90 minutes, 2 & a half hours, still far too long for an abductor.

[Vertigo Swirl]

90 minutes, 2 & a half hours, still far too long for an abductor.

And still quite tricky to explain a plausible scenario of parental involvement.

[jassi]

Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Might explain why the Portuguese came to no conclusion and why the British don't seem to be doing any better.

Personally I don't think the dog alerts have any bearing on the British investigation but might explain why the Portuguese one went off track to arrive at precisely nothing after a year or so.

[jassi]

Whereas, several years on, OG hasn't come up with anything either.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Whereas, several years on, OG hasn't come up with anything either.

How do you know what they have or haven't come up with?  Do they brief you regularly?

[Mr Gray]

How do you know what they have or haven't come up with?  Do they brief you regularly?

I thought it had been established  beyond doubt that police forces keep things secret

[G-Unit]

Rather than attack the poster and their motives why not actually address the rather valid points she has made regarding the alert to the clothes?

They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.

There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.

[Vertigo Swirl]

They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.

There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.

The questions were perfectly on topic IMO as they related to the dog's alerts of the clothing and how it was decided what the dog was actually alerting to.

[Brietta]

They are off topic. The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts. The inference is that it does, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that confirms that.

There is also no evidence that there was anything wrong with the dog's alerts to the clothes. Some people might think so, but opinions aren't proven facts. You may think using one opinion to support another opinion is valid, I don't.

In my opinion you are wrong with reference to the opening post ... "The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts."

Not only did the dog use it's nose in the gymnasium ... it used it's mouth to fling the evidence around.  So might well be in accord with the theme of the thread but your not wishing to discuss that aspect of the dog's behaviour ( which basically is what this thread is about) doesn't automatically rule it OT.
The editors will decide that.

[Brietta]

The questions were perfectly on topic IMO as they related to the dog's alerts of the clothing and how it was decided what the dog was actually alerting to.

You beat me to it ... but agreed.

[G-Unit]

In my opinion you are wrong with reference to the opening post ... "The topic is clearly stated in the opening post and the question being asked is whether the position of a cadaver dog's nose has any connection to it's alerts."

Not only did the dog use it's nose in the gymnasium ... it used it's mouth to fling the evidence around.  So might well be in accord with the theme of the thread but your not wishing to discuss that aspect of the dog's behaviour ( which basically is what this thread is about) doesn't automatically rule it OT.
The editors will decide that.

I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.

[Mr Gray]

I am answering one question as quoted. I have experienced the manner in which an opening subject becomes lost as threads develop. I don't want to discuss clothing alerts, I wish to discuss the alert behind the couch. I reject any suggestion that bringing other alerts into the discussion adds to it; in my opinion it detracts from it.

It was sunny on the first page who brought up alerts in general