Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[MissFine]

Thanks MissFine.

Good thing we have thick skins.

It sure is. (hugs)

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

She sure had a full day.

It's obvious TO ME (and a lot of others here) that Oriah and scent dogs are being not only questioned but UNNECESSARILY doubted and mistrusted.

Not sure why it's even allowed for a professional handler to be treated in such an unfair way. :furious:

It is embarressing and I am so sorry Oriah had to endure this. moo

I'm going to defend the HRD dogs with an example from the UK.

The police suspect the husband of murdering and burying his wife but all they have is circumstantial evidence (he didn't report her missing for 5 days) and a "hit" from Eddie the cadaver dog(the same one used in the McCann case)

They didn't find any blood or any other forensic evidence. The police theory was that he strangled her in the home and buried her somewhere on his 276 acre farm. After many months of searching they couldn't locate her.

In Feb 2010 he was convicted without a body and only circumstantial evidence. This week he finally confessed and showed the police where he buried the body.

 

[MissFine]

I'm going to defend the HRD dogs with an example from the UK.

The police suspect the husband of murdering and burying his wife but all they have is circumstantial evidence (he didn't report her missing for 5 days) and a "hit" from Eddie the cadaver dog(the same one used in the McCann case)

They didn't find any blood or any other forensic evidence. The police theory was that he strangled her in the home and buried her somewhere on his 276 acre farm. After many months of searching they couldn't locate her.

In Feb 2010 he was convicted without a body and only circumstantial evidence. This week he finally confessed and showed the police where he buried the body.

TheTruthWillOut-
Sublime example. Thanks!

Repeating for emphasis only-

In Feb 2010 he was convicted without a body and only circumstantial evidence.

 

[JohnBull]

I'm going to defend the HRD dogs with an example from the UK.

The police suspect the husband of murdering and burying his wife but all they have is circumstantial evidence (he didn't report her missing for 5 days) and a "hit" from Eddie the cadaver dog(the same one used in the McCann case)

They didn't find any blood or any other forensic evidence. The police theory was that he strangled her in the home and buried her somewhere on his 276 acre farm. After many months of searching they couldn't locate her.

In Feb 2010 he was convicted without a body and only circumstantial evidence. This week he finally confessed and showed the police where he buried the body.

That's a great defense of the cadaver dogs, but it doesn't say much for the English justice system.

 

[Madeleine74]

I will believe a dog over any human when it comes to truthfulness. If a trained search or cadaver dog 'hits' on something, then there's a reason for it. Dogs don't lie..it's one reason (of many) they are better than many people.

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm going to defend the HRD dogs with an example from the UK.

The police suspect the husband of murdering and burying his wife but all they have is circumstantial evidence (he didn't report her missing for 5 days) and a "hit" from Eddie the cadaver dog(the same one used in the McCann case)

They didn't find any blood or any other forensic evidence. The police theory was that he strangled her in the home and buried her somewhere on his 276 acre farm. After many months of searching they couldn't locate her.

In Feb 2010 he was convicted without a body and only circumstantial evidence. This week he finally confessed and showed the police where he buried the body.

That's a great defense of the cadaver dogs, but it doesn't say much for the English justice system.

Is this the Kate Prout case?

Prout admitted the murder three months after failing a lie detector test which his family and Miss Garlick had begged him to take in the hope that it would exonerate him.

Don Cargill, chairman of the British and European Polygraphy Association, who conducted the test, said Prout’s heart rate, blood pressure, sweat and breathing patterns were monitored as he was asked if he killed his wife.

Mr Cargill said after failing, Prout gave a wry smile and admitted that the findings were correct.

‘I told him that according to my tests, he was clearly a murderer. But he only smiled again in what was one of the most surreal and chilling experiences of my life.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nfesses-shows-police-Red-Hill-Farm-grave.html

 

[JohnBull]

I will believe a dog over any human when it comes to truthfulness. If a trained search or cadaver dog 'hits' on something, then there's a reason for it. Dogs don't lie..it's one reason (of many) they are better than many people.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my dog has never told a lie. I think that's because he knows if he does he'll go to Doggie Hell and get a pitchfork up his bottom.

 

[Madeleine74]

I can't speak for anyone else, but my dog has never told a lie. I think that's because he knows if he does he'll go to Doggie Hell and get a pitchfork up his bottom.

LOL. Naahhhh. It's because doggies are angels in fur suits. Their little souls are pure and real. Well, that and the pitchfork of fear of course.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

That's a great defense of the cadaver dogs, but it doesn't say much for the English justice system.

To be fair I have a particular soft spot for the two dogs and handler/trainer Martin Grime used in the McCann case if I'm honest.

Funnily enough, I believe the dog handler/trainer of the above dogs has a contract with the FBI Forensic Canine program. (Maybe Oriah or Sarx know more about him?)

You mention the English justice system. Care to elaborate?

 

[JohnBull]

You mention the English justice system. Care to elaborate?

Nothing in particular, unless they'd convict someone without a body and on the evidence of a cadaver dog alone. But I'm not familiar with the case, so maybe I'm being a bit unfair.

 

[AlmostGone]

I think these dogs are amazing and I hope the hit helps convict someone or someone's IMO

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Nothing in particular, unless they'd convict someone without a body and on the evidence of a cadaver dog alone. But I'm not familiar with the case, so maybe I'm being a bit unfair.

I don't believe the cadaver dog "hit" was used as evidence in the trial. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.

As far as no body.........out of the 600-700 murders each year in England and Wales, "several" are tried each year:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...without-a-body-are-not-that-rare-1890539.html

Just so I'm clear, cadaver dog's or blood dog's are *not* evidence on their own but are an *excellent* tool of where LE should focus their investigation even when no blood or DNA is found. MOO

 

[JohnBull]

Just so I'm clear, cadaver dog's or blood dog's are *not* evidence on their own but are an *excellent* tool of where LE should focus their investigation even when no blood or DNA is found. MOO

That's my take on it as well.

 

[Baxter]

I can't reproduce this article because of copyright laws, but I am citing it below. If you can get a hold of it, it explains the most current information on VOC's (volatile organic compounds) including how they are formed, how dogs use them to track (this is mostly about dogs being able to smell disease, but they do go into tracking in general). This is written by scientists from the Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences at The University of Tokyo, and published by the Oxford University, and is then peer-reviewed. (In other words, it's not just some random web site).

This is just ONE article I used to learn about cadaver dogs. I know a few other posters have also looked stuff up in their university libraries, and they have found similar information.

I am not trying to say that out experts are wrong - I just think that there are mixed messages. Dogs are capable of some amazing stuff, but they are not infallible. And it's not just because of the trainer/handler (although a good trainer is absolutely necessary), there are limitations to what dogs can do. And a dog simply can NOT tell the difference between cadaverine that comes from a dead body and cadaverine that comes from urine. It is not possible.

Dogs may NOT hit on areas where a dead body was, and they may hit on places where no dead body ever was. It happens. It doesn't mean that dogs are useless or fakes. There is a lot of documentation that proves that dogs are indeed excellent trackers. (Wasps are too - who knew?). As I said before, I would totally want track dogs called in if I was searching for someone. But they make mistakes.

Take it for what it's worth. I am tired of beating my head against the wall. And this is just one of the articles. I have about 15 more. It's an interesting subject, you might want to research it.

Shirasu, M., & Touhara, K. (2011). The scent of disease: volatile organic compounds of the human body related to disease and disorder. Journal Of Biochemistry, 150(3), 257-266


ETA: I should say, a dog COULD probably be trained to NOT hit on the additional compounds present in every other substance that could possibly have cadaverine compounds in it. So, possibly, a dog could be trained to HIT on cadaverine, except when the odor of urine is also present, for example. But that seems like a bad idea. In many deaths, the victim vomits or urinates at or immediately before death.

You are not an expert or a dog handler. I think I will go with their opinions.
Anyone can read a book.

 

[JohnBull]

You are not an expert or a dog handler. I think I will go with their opinions.
Anyone can read a book.

Hmm, I think I might dispute that claim.
:floorlaugh:

 

[NotSoSherlock]

Wasn't there another no-fly zone enforced for the search on N. Brighton also? The day before when it was reported that LE was seen going into the woods with "sifters".

If you go to NBCActionNews' Looking for Lisa Irwin page and click the Nothing found in woods near Lisa’s home link, the video may confirm what you are saying. There was a no-fly order for this particular search and you can see LE carrying sifters into the woods.

BTW, this page collects all of that network's Lisa Irwin-related videos so it's a nice resource to add to your bookmarks on the case.

 

[Oriah]

To be fair I have a particular soft spot for the two dogs and handler/trainer Martin Grime used in the McCann case if I'm honest.

Funnily enough, I believe the dog handler/trainer of the above dogs has a contract with the FBI Forensic Canine program. (Maybe Oriah or Sarx know more about him?)

You mention the English justice system. Care to elaborate?

So do I.
I think Martin Grime is an excellent trainer (despite all the controversy that swirls around him.) I might be biased, because for the most part he trains like we do. The only thing we do differently is never lay scent ourselves.
Here is a video that might help explain the specificity of scent work, as well as alerts:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHdPGyQt2M"]'Send In The Dogs' - Martin Grime - YouTube[/ame]

And yes, I believe he does.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

Thanks for that Oriah. Good to know that the training of these amazing dogs is as good as their noses.:rocker:

I see you mention the controversy that surround's MG. I was thinking that maybe the FBI had that in mind with their own forensic canine unit when requesting the no fly zones or filming.:twocents:

 

[Oriah]

Thanks for that Oriah. Good to know that the training of these amazing dogs is as good as their noses.:rocker:

I see you mention the controversy that surround's MG. I was thinking that maybe the FBI had that in mind with their own forensic canine unit when requesting the no fly zones or filming.:twocents:

You'd be amazed at how much spin can be generated with absolutely no basis for it. Some professions seem to be more susceptible than others- and working/training dogs is one of them. No matter how many times an excellent and ethical trainer explains that dogs are not 'perfect', that they are just like many other investigative techniques used, and very useful tools at that...well, some people just don't want to accept their evidence. Part of that is bad and unethical trainers and handlers who give a bad name to the profession. But much of it is, imvho, just mean spirited and closed-minded.

There are unethical and poorly trained people in every profession, unfortunately- but when people start blanketing entire professions with an attitude that reflects only some in the field- it cuts everyone off at the knees. Not helpful when searching for a missing person.

I can go into court and demonstate an alert for RDX. Then an alert for SEMTEX. Then an alert for C-4.
There are still going to be people on a jury who just don't want to accept that my dog has been trained to discriminate between exposives. Most would change their mind when my dog alerts to an explosive in the courtroom.

I have yet to understand why. And I completely understand the no-fly.

 

[justamommy]

So do I.
I think Martin Grime is an excellent trainer (despite all the controversy that swirls around him.) I might be biased, because for the most part he trains like we do. The only thing we do differently is never lay scent ourselves.
Here is a video that might help explain the specificity of scent work, as well as alerts:
'Send In The Dogs' - Martin Grime - YouTube

And yes, I believe he does.

Amazing... I think these dogs are amazing. Makes me want to hug my doggy.