Canadian forensic anthropologist Scott Fairgrieve joins Casey Anthony's defense

[MissJames]

residual odor: I have an old coat that I wear to the dog park when it is cold, which is not that often here in Fl. I always carry a few 'treats' in the pocket of this old coat to reward my dogs when they come the first time I call them - which is not always the case! I had to go to Ohio last week unexpectedly and the 'old coat' was the warmest piece of clothing I had, so I wore it. While I was out there, we took my sister's dog to the Vet. I sat in the waiting room and two dogs (both Labs or Lab mixes) came over and tried to get their noses into my coat pocket! There were no treats in my pocket but both dogs 'hit' on the pocket immediately. Perfect example of residual odor - and these weren't trained dogs, they were family pets!

Exactly! The treats left enough residue for the dogs to scent.
They don't have to be trained for that ! LOL .It's part of their make up. What they get trained to do is to follow only a particular scent .
I just wrote this on the Holly Bobo thread,but people are always shedding skin cells. That's how tracking dogs track.There IS a science behind it because wind humidity levels,etc must be taken into acct by handler.
Cadaver dogs don't track ,per se.They search a designated area and if they come upon the decomp or residue they will signal the handler,usually with a sit.

 

[MissJames]

Cool to read about your experience with this, thank you! I didn't explain myself well and may be using an incorrect term. What I meant is that "blinds" or controls would have to be in place for an alert to be of interest to me. To me, leading a dog to a car is a cue in itself. For example, in the McCann case I still don't consider the dog alerts verifiable/scientific as in useful for in a court of law, but if a dog picks one car out of several cars in a garage on its own without being led, that piques my interest considerably more than if a dog is led straight to a particular car and encouraged to look at and smell that car. In the case where the dog is taken to a particular car for example, who's to say it doesn't finally sit down because it can't think of anything else to do with that car that it's being made to keep looking at and circle. Or because something about this search reminds it of the last time it alerted and got a reward? Or because it once found something and was rewarded when led in the same manner? Or because it smells another smell that is present which we are not aware of that was coincidentally present on a training sample container or object before, or present in another case where it found something, etc. Or it might hop up and paw at the trunk because it figures, ok, let's see what's in here, or he's still having me look here, that must be what my handler wants. I mean dogs are super intelligent, they're not machines you roll to the search object and switch on. They're going to be trying to figure out the entire time, why is he bringing me here, what does he want me to do here? They're going to see every cue from their handler, is my handler interested in this target? (being natural pack hunters). And, after all, do cadaver dogs never sit down other than when they alert? Do they stand at all times? What does a sit mean? What does a look mean? etc

If 3 dog handlers were on hand to see what a dog did, it's still just as subjective. His tail went up half way that means.....his eyes locked on to mine, that means....he acted kind of excited.....I could hear him breathing....etc Totally subjective. When people say what a dog meant, that's hearsay in my opinion, or even a step further. (Unless the dog cues in a place and then this cue is confirmed by remains actually being found.)

In other words, with no remains actually found, it's just not verifiable, or quantifiable, so not suitable to be used as evidence in a court of law imo.

Would I use dogs in case they could aid in finding something, of course, if they were available! Do I think they have amazing talents? Yes! But if they "alert" and then no remains/decomposing materials are found, do we then say, oh that means remains were once here but aren't any more? No, because there's no way of knowing if it's a false positive.

p.s. regarding dogs having an alertness to cues/gestures/behaviors by humans next to them that we are unaware of ourselves-- my personal experience in this is that as a kid our family dog knew that my brother was about to have a seizure several minutes before the seizure occurred and before my brother or any of us had any idea. What did our dog see, hear, smell, who knows?

Oh no, from what I've seen I think LDB is the one who uses the tactics you describe above! I appreciate the fact that Baez never resorts to a rude, mocking, bullying, or "you are stupid" tone, (which LDB even used on Dr. Fairgrieve, a Cambridge educated forensics expert LOL), and doesn't do the "tear them down", or the changing definitions on witnesses midstream, or he "pure confusion" etc. moo To me, it's most shocking when she's questioning the family of the victim, very insensitive at times imo.

Oh,but it was verified,IMO. Caylee was last seen getting into that car and later her remains were found so the hits WERE verified. The dogs are trained to the scent.
Consider how a dog will start sniffing the clothing of someone who owns a dog ,because they smell the residual scent ,even though that dog is not present.
Tracking dogs work by following a scent trail.That person is not physically right in front of the dog ,but their shed skin cells (not seen by the naked eye) are .
It really won't matter at trial if the dog hits come in,anyway. Plenty of people smelled the car and knew what it was,and Caylee WAS found dead.
2+2 still equals 4.
JMO

 

[K9Snoop]

Cool to read about your experience with this, thank you! I didn't explain myself well and may be using an incorrect term. What I meant is that "blinds" or controls would have to be in place for an alert to be of interest to me. To me, leading a dog to a car is a cue in itself. For example, in the McCann case I still don't consider the dog alerts verifiable/scientific as in useful for in a court of law, but if a dog picks one car out of several cars in a garage on its own without being led, that piques my interest considerably more than if a dog is led straight to a particular car and encouraged to look at and smell that car. In the case where the dog is taken to a particular car for example, who's to say it doesn't finally sit down because it can't think of anything else to do with that car that it's being made to keep looking at and circle. Or because something about this search reminds it of the last time it alerted and got a reward? Or because it once found something and was rewarded when led in the same manner? Or because it smells another smell that is present which we are not aware of that was coincidentally present on a training sample container or object before, or present in another case where it found something, etc. Or it might hop up and paw at the trunk because it figures, ok, let's see what's in here, or he's still having me look here, that must be what my handler wants. I mean dogs are super intelligent, they're not machines you roll to the search object and switch on. They're going to be trying to figure out the entire time, why is he bringing me here, what does he want me to do here? They're going to see every cue from their handler, is my handler interested in this target? (being natural pack hunters). And, after all, do cadaver dogs never sit down other than when they alert? Do they stand at all times? What does a sit mean? What does a look mean? etc.

Good handlers take the overall body language/behavioral changes into the context of the whole picture because there are times when the dog will be unable to give it's "trained" alert. I've seen this demo'd a couple of time on handlers who say "my dog will always give his 'trained' alert. What I saw were dogs who can't sit because there is no room to sit (or down), dogs who can't give active alert (dig or paw) because there is nothing to dig or paw at. Yes, dogs can and do sit and down as a natural behavior but what you document is that in the context of a training problem the dog only indicated (by whatever method) when in the presence of cadaver odor. This carries over to real life situations. In other words he just didn't randomly sit anywhere/everywhere but only when conditions that he has been trained to indicate existed. This is where the proofing and negative scent training comes into play. As far as what the sit or look means, that's the handler's job to elucidate this to judge, jury, LE, DA, etc.

If 3 dog handlers were on hand to see what a dog did, it's still just as subjective. His tail went up half way that means.....his eyes locked on to mine, that means....he acted kind of excited.....I could hear him breathing....etc Totally subjective. When people say what a dog meant, that's hearsay in my opinion, or even a step further. (Unless the dog cues in a place and then this cue is confirmed by remains actually being found.).

In some ways it could be argued as 'subjective'. But it is not. Breathing changes are an objective observation. As is all the rest of it. I had this same conversation with a very experienced master trainer and certifying official for a national organization. He asked me to describe the certain characteristical changes that my dog exhibits when in the presence of human decomp odor. When I mentioned breathing changes, tail carriage changes, posture changes, etc. he then asked me if I could train those behaviors. I was like "Absolutely not!". He then said if you can't train it, you can't cue it. Yes, you can cue a sit or down but you cannot cue the dog to stack it's breathing, stiffen its muscles, drop its tail, intensify its gaze, etc as a total package. Maybe there is someone out there who is a better dog trainer then me who can train all that stuff - but since I can't then I can't cue it or make the dog do it.

In other words, with no remains actually found, it's just not verifiable, or quantifiable, so not suitable to be used as evidence in a court of law imo.

Would I use dogs in case they could aid in finding something, of course, if they were available! Do I think they have amazing talents? Yes! But if they "alert" and then no remains/decomposing materials are found, do we then say, oh that means remains were once here but aren't any more? No, because there's no way of knowing if it's a false positive.

Scent is evidence and should be treated as such. For example, you smell the odor of popcorn when you walk into a room but upon a search you do not find the bag the popcorn was cooked in, popcorn or any kernals lying about, etc. Does this mean that the popcorn never existed? That you do not smell what you are smelling (a false positive in your context) because your nose says "positive" but your forensic examination (your search for evidence) says it never happened and hence is "false"? Or do you say someone has to have cooked some popcorn because all the other times you smelt that odor popcorn was found to have been made?

Let's look at this in another light. Say you smell "popcorn" but can't find any evidence of it (a false alert). However, later a friend says he was told that someone had cooked bag of popcorn about an hour earlier. You still have a false positive because no evidence was found and what your friend tells you is hearsay and has no validity. Or does it?

Let's say you smell the popcorn, your friend tells you he was told that popcorn was cooked there an hour earlier, that you know there is a co-worker who really loves popcorn, is known to cook it in this room, and was present in the building at the time, in the timeframe the popcorn was cooked, etc. Do you still have a "false positive" because you have no way of proving that this popcorn was ever cooked no matter what you thought you smelt? Or a circumstancial case for you to think this co-worker popped some popcorn?

 

[strawberry]

All I know is yesterday my dog sniffed out a box of chocolate donuts my DD had in her room, ate them, threw them up, then from my room sniffed out and found the Easter Candy hidden downstairs, ate that, threw it up, and today sniffed out a chocolate candy wrapper in the bottom of the covered kitchen trash can.

 

[MissJames]

All I know is yesterday my dog sniffed out a box of chocolate donuts my DD had in her room, ate them, threw them up, then from my room sniffed out and found the Easter Candy hidden downstairs, ate that, threw it up, and today sniffed out a chocolate candy wrapper in the bottom of the covered kitchen trash can.

Chocolate is toxic to dogs .They can't process something in it and can actually die. Scary at all the good holidays :sick:

 

[RR0004]

Good handlers take the overall body language/behavioral changes into the context of the whole picture because there are times when the dog will be unable to give it's "trained" alert. I've seen this demo'd a couple of time on handlers who say "my dog will always give his 'trained' alert. What I saw were dogs who can't sit because there is no room to sit (or down), dogs who can't give active alert (dig or paw) because there is nothing to dig or paw at. Yes, dogs can and do sit and down as a natural behavior but what you document is that in the context of a training problem the dog only indicated (by whatever method) when in the presence of cadaver odor. This carries over to real life situations. In other words he just didn't randomly sit anywhere/everywhere but only when conditions that he has been trained to indicate existed. This is where the proofing and negative scent training comes into play. As far as what the sit or look means, that's the handler's job to elucidate this to judge, jury, LE, DA, etc.




In some ways it could be argued as 'subjective'. But it is not. Breathing changes are an objective observation. As is all the rest of it. I had this same conversation with a very experienced master trainer and certifying official for a national organization. He asked me to describe the certain characteristical changes that my dog exhibits when in the presence of human decomp odor. When I mentioned breathing changes, tail carriage changes, posture changes, etc. he then asked me if I could train those behaviors. I was like "Absolutely not!". He then said if you can't train it, you can't cue it. Yes, you can cue a sit or down but you cannot cue the dog to stack it's breathing, stiffen its muscles, drop its tail, intensify its gaze, etc as a total package. Maybe there is someone out there who is a better dog trainer then me who can train all that stuff - but since I can't then I can't cue it or make the dog do it.



Scent is evidence and should be treated as such. For example, you smell the odor of popcorn when you walk into a room but upon a search you do not find the bag the popcorn was cooked in, popcorn or any kernals lying about, etc. Does this mean that the popcorn never existed? That you do not smell what you are smelling (a false positive in your context) because your nose says "positive" but your forensic examination (your search for evidence) says it never happened and hence is "false"? Or do you say someone has to have cooked some popcorn because all the other times you smelt that odor popcorn was found to have been made?

Let's look at this in another light. Say you smell "popcorn" but can't find any evidence of it (a false alert). However, later a friend says he was told that someone had cooked bag of popcorn about an hour earlier. You still have a false positive because no evidence was found and what your friend tells you is hearsay and has no validity. Or does it?

Let's say you smell the popcorn, your friend tells you he was told that popcorn was cooked there an hour earlier, that you know there is a co-worker who really loves popcorn, is known to cook it in this room, and was present in the building at the time, in the timeframe the popcorn was cooked, etc. Do you still have a "false positive" because you have no way of proving that this popcorn was ever cooked no matter what you thought you smelt? Or a circumstancial case for you to think this co-worker popped some popcorn?

Wow...thank you so much for explaining this!!

 

[strawberry]

Chocolate is toxic to dogs .They can't process something in it and can actually die. Scary at all the good holidays :sick:

I know! that's why I was glad she threw it right up. Last Easter, when she ate the WHOLE Easter basket the vet taught me what to look for. She got around the gate I put the candy behind this year (and my DD left her door open). She's also eaten gum with xylitol and wound up on IV glucose. Since she survived the chocolate the only problem is she's supposed to be on a low oxalate diet! I should have named her Marley. Her name is, well, Casey (we named her in 2004). Thanks for your concern! It is scary

 

[MissJames]

I know! that's why I was glad she threw it right up. Last Easter, when she ate the WHOLE Easter basket the vet taught me what to look for. She got around the gate I put the candy behind this year (and my DD left her door open). She's also eaten gum with xylitol and wound up on IV glucose. Since she survived the chocolate the only problem is she's supposed to be on a low oxalate diet! I should have named her Marley. Her name is, well, Casey (we named her in 2004). Thanks for your concern! It is scary

OMG ! Respectfully ,:innocent: Maybe you named her correctly :crazy:
She's sneaky ,she steals and we know ICA likes her snacks :floorlaugh:

Nah! on second thought,your Casey is probably loyal and loves you unconditionally. Nothing like her namesake :blowkiss::beagle:

Working dogs can be a amazing when they have good training and good handlers ! Let the jury decide.

 

[strawberry]

OMG ! Respectfully ,:innocent: Maybe you named her correctly :crazy:
She's sneaky ,she steals and we know ICA likes her snacks :floorlaugh:

Nah! on second thought,your Casey is probably loyal and loves you unconditionally. Nothing like her namesake :blowkiss::beagle:

Working dogs can be a amazing when they have good training and good handlers ! Let the jury decide.

Good point! Except one of passwords for something is "Ilovecasey" and I shudder every time I type it in.:innocent:

 

[K9Snoop]

just another thought about scent/odor.

Concerning 'false positives', here's another way to look at it. Is there anytime that you smelled popcorn odor but determined that it never existed? In other words has there ever been an occasion where the odor of popcorn manifested on its own? If so, how often has this happened and under what circumstances? This would give you the statistical odds for false positive alerts on the odor of popcorn.

 

[Aedrys]

All I know is, if it's a choice of trusting the dogs or trusting the DT, I'm trusting the dogs, hands down. Caylee was in that trunk, there smell is still there to this day, and the dogs verified it. That's good enough for me.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

just another thought about scent/odor.

Concerning 'false positives', here's another way to look at it. Is there anytime that you smelled popcorn odor but determined that it never existed? In other words has there ever been an occasion where the odor of popcorn manifested on its own? If so, how often has this happened and under what circumstances? This would give you the statistical odds for false positive alerts on the odor of popcorn.

You bring up a great point, K9...I was wondering if since GA drove that car home with that horrible, horrible odor, could that be what caused the dog to hit in the yard by the playhouse? Both parents say, as soon as they got back home with that car, they immediately checked the playhouse and yard...but two cadaver dogs hit in that same area...I just wish someone in that fam ily would be truthful and not continue with their misleads, misrepresentations of the absolute truth...people lie, evidence doesn't....JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I know! that's why I was glad she threw it right up. Last Easter, when she ate the WHOLE Easter basket the vet taught me what to look for. She got around the gate I put the candy behind this year (and my DD left her door open). She's also eaten gum with xylitol and wound up on IV glucose. Since she survived the chocolate the only problem is she's supposed to be on a low oxalate diet! I should have named her Marley. Her name is, well, Casey (we named her in 2004). Thanks for your concern! It is scary

How funny I came on this thread and this conversation is going on! I just was talking to a coworker about how years ago had a dog (very small breed mix) who ate an entire 1 lb bag of chocolate candy and then proceeded to throw it up. I didn’t hurt her. That was BEFORE I knew chocolate was toxic to a dog. Evidently this dog had a stomach of steel!

 

[K9Snoop]

You bring up a great point, K9...I was wondering if since GA drove that car home with that horrible, horrible odor, could that be what caused the dog to hit in the yard by the playhouse? Both parents say, as soon as they got back home with that car, they immediately checked the playhouse and yard...but two cadaver dogs hit in that same area...

I, personally believe, that neither of the parents mistook the odor for something other then what it was. I feel safe in saying that we all know the differences in smell between rotten garbage and something deceased. The fact that they searched tells me that they harbored private reservations about the ongoing family situation.

I consider the dogs' work to be creditable since the work was conducted indepentantly and with similar results. The issue that the DT will make is that there were no alerts in the same location after forensics had come through and removed earth/disturbed the soil, etc. *If* a body is enclosed in something that does not allow for fluids to leak through, allowed to rest in an area for a short time, then removed, then all you will have there is the odor without any physical material. It is entirely possible that forensics removed the very soil that was holding the scent. The Germans conducted an experiment (link attached)

http://doglawreporter.blogspot.com/2009/06/dogs-detect-scent-of-cadavers-up-to-two.html

Read for particular details but in a nutshell, a wrapped up body was placed on some carpeting for just a couple of minutes (2 minutes and 10 minutes). There was no fluid transfer or physical touching of the carpeting. The dogs were still indicating on the carpeting respectively 35 and 65 days later. Alerts were 86% correct on the 2-minute square and 98% on the 10-minute square. Which is still way above the minimal creditable standard required for courts. The warning the reporter writes is that if you kill someone, remove the body quickly or the dogs will find you out.