the cadaver dog

[SapphireSteel]

While you may feel that they cannot be substituted, the dogs do not seem to share your position. They have demonstrated to me and others that the degredation of material received from a living donor (removed limbs, body parts, internal organs, etc) are equal and consistant with the degredation of the same material received from non-living donors. I have spoken to other HRD handlers to see if there is any validity to your argument. As one put it ".... then we should be running into situations were some dogs alert and others don't. But all the dogs are alerting......all the dogs can't be wrong." You see at seminars, everybody brings stuff to use. To the dog, every dog, have alerted without prompting to amputations received from living donors and to amputations received from dead ones. It's not me telling you this. It's the dogs. The dogs are telling you this. Maintain to your beliefs if it pleases you, ..... in the end, the dogs do not support your allegations.

Taken from "Cadaver Dog Handbook: Forensic Training and Tactics for the Recovery of Human Remains" by Andrew Rebmann and Edward David.
.
"At the time of biological death, the individual scent emitted by the subject undergoes a transformation...Cadaver scent differs from live scent. It is chemically generic and not specific to one individual...cadaver scent is not an individual scent, but a range of scents produced...the decay process produces a variety of gases, liquids, and acids . It is these by products that the dog is trained to recognise and indicate."


http://books.google.com.au/books?id...=cadaver scent vs decomposition scent&f=false

The decomposition of a biologically dead human being occurs as follows -

Observation of the various stages of decomposition can help determine how long a body has been dead.

The first stage is autolysis, more commonly known as self-digestion, during which the body's cells are destroyed through the action of their own digestive enzymes. However, these enzymes are released into the cells because of the cessation of active processes in the cells, not as an active process. In other words, though autolysis resembles the active process of digestion of nutrients by live cells, the dead cells are not actively digesting themselves as is often claimed in popular literature and as the synonym self-digestion of autolysis seems to imply. As a result of autolysis, liquid is created that gets between the layers of skin and makes the skin peel off. During this stage, flies (when present) start to lay eggs in the openings of the body: eyes, nostrils, mouth, ears, open wounds, and other orifices. Hatched larvae (maggots) of blowflies subsequently get under the skin and start to eat the body.

The second stage of decomposition is bloating; bacteria in the gut begin to break down the tissues of the body, releasing gas that accumulates in the intestines, which becomes trapped because of the early collapse of the small intestine. This bloating occurs largely in the abdomen, and sometimes in the mouth and genitals. The tongue may swell. This usually happens in about the second week of decomposition. Gas accumulation and bloating will continue until the body is decomposed sufficiently for the gas to escape.

The third stage is putrefaction. It is the last and longest stage. Putrefaction is where the larger structures of the body break down, and tissues liquefy. The digestive organs, the brain, and lungs are the first to disintegrate. Under normal conditions, the organs are unidentifiable after three weeks. The muscles can be eaten by bacteria or devoured by carnivorous animals. Eventually, sometimes after several years, all that remains is the skeleton.

Cadaver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clearly, neither autolysis nor bloating will occur in a decomposing limb from a LIVE BODY. The decomposition process is entirely different as there are no intestinal breakdown.

 

[K9Snoop]

Yes, HRD dogs are not trained to alert to "live" odor. This means they will not alert to a living, breathing person, or the scent trail left by a living, breathing person. However, once you remove fluids (blood) or flesh from a living, breathing person then "live" becomes "dead" and dogs will alert to it. What they are proofed off of are fecal, urine, semen, saliva, or similar substances.

 

[fabgod]

Yes, HRD dogs are not trained to alert to "live" odor. This means they will not alert to a living, breathing person, or the scent trail left by a living, breathing person. However, once you remove fluids (blood) or flesh from a living, breathing person then "live" becomes "dead" and dogs will alert to it. What they are proofed off of are fecal, urine, semen, saliva, or similar substances.

Hi K9Snoop,
Does that mean then, that HRD dogs will not alert to for example, soiled babies nappies?
Just for clarity, you are saying that the dogs are trained not to alert to urine, saliva etc, even though that can be classed as being "dead" when deposited out of the human body?

I presume this is because you can actually seperate these substances and isolate them, therefore being able to "educate" the dogs that these are not cadaver, whereas blood will be present in almost any situation where adead body has been present and would be almost impossible to eliminate from the equation?

Thanks in advance

 

[K9Snoop]

Hi K9Snoop,
Does that mean then, that HRD dogs will not alert to for example, soiled babies nappies?
Just for clarity, you are saying that the dogs are trained not to alert to urine, saliva etc, even though that can be classed as being "dead" when deposited out of the human body?

I presume this is because you can actually seperate these substances and isolate them, therefore being able to "educate" the dogs that these are not cadaver, whereas blood will be present in almost any situation where adead body has been present and would be almost impossible to eliminate from the equation?

Thanks in advance

That's correct, if properly trained and proofed, a dog should NOT alert to soiled nappies. As well as the other substances.

There are also some who do not train their dogs to alert to the presence of blood while others do. The ones who do not want alerts on blood do this because you can have accidental blood loss in the home but that does not necessarily mean the person expired there too since blood is not always present with a dead body. Drownings, suffocations, blunt force trauma, etc can result in death with no blood loss.

 

[fabgod]

That's correct, if properly trained and proofed, a dog should NOT alert to soiled nappies. As well as the other substances.

There are also some who do not train their dogs to alert to the presence of blood while others do. The ones who do not want alerts on blood do this because you can have accidental blood loss in the home but that does not necessarily mean the person expired there too since blood is not always present with a dead body. Drownings, suffocations, blunt force trauma, etc can result in death with no blood loss.

Good information
Thanks K9Snoop

 

[SapphireSteel]

The reason we read that "cadaverine" was found is because cadaverine is NOT decomposition. They are similar but different processes involving different stages.

An amputated limb or some old blood from a live person is not cadaverine, see my post #201.

This is why Madeleine is suspected to have died in Apartment 5a, rather than having a blood nose or cut finger...the detection of cadaverine, which is only produced on biological death of the host.

The dogs ONLY alerted in Apartment 5a, even though they were run through the entire resort.

A busy and popular resort with many rooms will have traces of decomposition everywhere, guests having shaving cuts, blood noses, stubbed toes.

They did not because Eddie was a CADAVER dog, ie specifically trained to detect body fluids from a biologically dead host. The assertion that the autolysis and bloating processes can not be differentiated is false, as is the assertion that the decomposition scent is identical to cadaverine. The dogs know the difference. They will occasionally shy away from cadaverine because of their instinctual fear...something they will not do to decomposition from a live host, eg blood or semen or even a nice juicy bone from the butcher as the carcasses are properly prepared (the removal of the intestines occurs FIRST) not sitting around and left to rot and bloat.

It boils down to this - someone, carrying the McCann DNA, died in Apartment 5a and was later transported in the Renaut. Kate came into contact with this deceased person.

If it wasn't Madeleine, then who?

As K9 said, the dogs don't lie.

 

[brit1981]

dogs cannot differentiate between decomposition of material from a living donor, and decomposition from a dead donor. The processes are exactly the same.

Eddie was not a cadaver dog, he was a victim recovery dog. Eddie also does not, according to Grimes just alert to cadavers. Grimes states in his reports eddie alerts to bodily fluids, and would also alert to blood that had come from a living person but had dried (he states eddie would not alert to fresh blood). We can argue all day long about other dogs, but this is according to grimes what eddie alerts to. He also does not state that eddie went through the entire resort.
So without an actual body there is no way anyone can say someone died in the flat. We know at least one presvious occupant had bled in the flat, and cellylar material was found there, so for all anyone nows the dog was alerting to that as according to griems he should have done.
The dog can also not tell us who the bodily fluid or cadaverine came from so it is not possible to say it came from a mccann unless the bodily fluid was examined.

Mark Harrison states (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id293.html) that the EVRD will locate very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids, and bood.

Martin grimes states "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or terrain." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Grimes also states that "They [the evrd] find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
So there we have it the dogs handler has stated the dog is an evrd and alerts to bodily fluids, including blood from a live donor.

 

[Clutchbag]

Eddie the EVRD alerted only to the Mccanns apartment, car and belongings. Even if he was alerting to fluids from live humans, which is certainky NOT what Mr Grime has saidm the odds are astronomical that he would not have alerted elsewhere.

To say Eddie is NOT a cadaver dog when he is trained and used to find dead body scent is distorting the truth here Brit81. No need for that.

 

[brit1981]

No it is not distorting the truth. he is a victim recovery dog, and Grime clearly states that he alerts to bodily fluids that include blood from living people (which means the bodily fluids are not limited to blood). he says it in black and white in his PJ report.

As for why the dog did not alert elsewhere, well only Grime and the other occupants can answer that. But not many flats were searched just a handful, and according to previous occupants there had been at least one occasion where someone bled heavily in the mccanns flat just a few weeks before the mccanns stayed there (one perosn bled for nearly an hour after shaving, and someone else sustained a cut that required sticthes elsewher ein the resort but stayed in 5a). There was also a surgical assistant staying the mccanns flat shortly before the mccanns and assuming this ha dbeen translated properly (and not some mistranslation and she actually assists in a GPs suregery), then that perosn woudl also have come into contact with human material that woudl have began to degrade (a limb for instance woudl begin to degrade the instance the amputation occurred). As for the car, the EVRD only alerted to the car fob inside the car and the CSI also alerted to this and material was found on it belonged to gerry McCann who is alive.

But eddie is not a cadaver dog, this is something put about by the red tops.

 

[Clutchbag]

Mr Grime explains clearly in his CV what Eddie is. Why don't you explain what a VRD is and how it differs from a cadaver dog and THEN state how Eddie is not a cadaver dog.
And not forgetting Mr Grimes final summary in which he says Eddie alerts to cadaver scent

 

[brit1981]

An vrd is a victim recovery dog, grimes refers to eddie as an evrd an enhanced victim recovery dog. there are no cadaver dogs in the UK, as no dog can be trained on human tissue unless they go abroad (which eddie did for a short time acording to grimes), and even then they are not trained exclusively on human material as they also get trained in the UK.
In the Uk these dogs are just meant to assist in the recovery of a perosn, they are not intended to be used as evidence of where a body was (grimes also states that the alerts must be backed up by other evidence and cannot be used on their own).

As a EVRD eddie according to grimes alerts to cadaver scent, and bodily fluids including blood from a living person. Grimes is very clear that eddie does not just alert to cadaver scent. Unfortuently the UK red tops got hold of the term cadaver dogs and found it made snappier headlines than enhanced victim recovery dog.

 

[Clutchbag]

in the UK and the USA and Eire Eddie and other cadaver dogs have been used and reacted to remnant body scent, bodies found and charges and convictions made, without forensics and no body in some cases, yes they are all cadaver dogs, you cannot change reality, Eddie was a cadaver dog

 

[Donjeta]

I do believe there are no hotel rooms anywhere in the world in which no cellular material is found.

If the dog alerts to skin cells and such it alerts everywhere. An average human sheds about a million dead skin cells per day.

 

[fabgod]

I wonder why Mr Grimes doesnt correct everybody that states the dog alerts to cadaver?
surely by going along with the claim by others including the PJ, that the dog is capable of detecting cadaver he is opening himself up to litigation, that is unless the dog is
a Cadaver dog and he did seem to have quite a successful career in my opinion.

 

[Clutchbag]

I do believe there are no hotel rooms anywhere in the world in which no cellular material is found.

If the dog alerts to skin cells and such it alerts everywhere. An average human sheds about a million dead skin cells per day.

the argument that the cadaver dog reacts to all and sundry surely is destroyed by now for many reasons. It's a joke.

 

[Clutchbag]

I wonder why Mr Grimes doesnt correct everybody that states the dog alerts to cadaver?
surely by going along with the claim by others including the PJ, that the dog is capable of detecting cadaver he is opening himself up to litigation, that is unless the dog is
a Cadaver dog and he did seem to have quite a successful career in my opinion.

it's a joke to say he didn't work a cadaver dog, the results speak for themselves anyway, as I said in another thread it is a joke and you have to wonder why, given their record some here and even Kate McCann herself in her book has tried to trash the abilities of cadaver dogs with a bunch of lies. Well the answer is all too clear isn't it. Goodnight all.

 

[brit1981]

No-one has ever said the dog does not alert to cadaver, they are just repeating Grimes and harrisons statement that eddie alerts to cadaver, and bodily fluids. It is just randoms on the internet trying to claim the dogs only alert to cadavers, and as Grimes states ver honestly in his report that the dog does nto only alert to cadaver he does not have a problem.
Grimes calls eddie an enhanced victim recovery dog, and grimes states he alerts to bodily fluids as well as cadaver. It is people on the internet who are trying to claim the dogs so not alert to bodily fluid that are causing trouble for grimes, Like the jersey case, grimes was honest and said the dogs could alert to bodily fluids, but when it turned out that the dog had done just that the papers and people on the internet ripped grime apart, not the people who were claiming the alerts meant their had been seriel killing in a children's home!

And in actual fact when he worked for south yorkshire police eddie only found one body by himself even though he worked on over thirty cases.

 

[Donjeta]

And in actual fact when he worked for south yorkshire police eddie only found one body by himself even though he worked on over thirty cases.

That statistic in itself tells us absolutely nothing unless we know how many times there was a body that he should have found in those places he was taken to but didn't alert to.

I mean, if he missed over thirty bodies where he searched, it would be pretty bad although the relatives of the one he found must be grateful anyway.

But if the humans involved in the thirty plus cases took the dog to search places in which there are no bodies and he didn't find any he did what he was supposed to do.

He can't find any unless the police takes him to the right general area.

If he alerted like mad but nothing was ever found it wouldn't be too good either.

But we would have to know the rate of false positives and false negatives before we can tell what it means that he found one body in thirty cases.

 

[fabgod]

No-one has ever said the dog does not alert to cadaver, they are just repeating Grimes and harrisons statement that eddie alerts to cadaver, and bodily fluids. It is just randoms on the internet trying to claim the dogs only alert to cadavers, and as Grimes states ver honestly in his report that the dog does nto only alert to cadaver he does not have a problem.
Grimes calls eddie an enhanced victim recovery dog, and grimes states he alerts to bodily fluids as well as cadaver. It is people on the internet who are trying to claim the dogs so not alert to bodily fluid that are causing trouble for grimes, Like the jersey case, grimes was honest and said the dogs could alert to bodily fluids, but when it turned out that the dog had done just that the papers and people on the internet ripped grime apart, not the people who were claiming the alerts meant their had been seriel killing in a children's home!

And in actual fact when he worked for south yorkshire police eddie only found one body by himself even though he worked on over thirty cases.

Could you post links to your claims to allow us to gain some perspective on what is being presented as fact please?

 

[redheadedgal]

imo, there is no sense continuing to argue semantics b/w cadaver dog and evrd (which is now occuring in two forums)... it's pointless and futile...

most of us here know the truth about eddie and the other dogs owned by mr grime.