the cadaver dog

[badhorsie]

Eddie was not wholly trained in the UK.

"'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. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches. He has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced
training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent'
odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not
contact the subject. This method is comparable to the simulation of cross
contamination. It does however differ in that the remote scent samples
recovery does not involve subject matter and therefore is a 'pure' scent
sample. The dog has since initial training gained considerable experience in
successfully operationally locating human remains and evidential forensic
material.

Clickable original documents at link

 

[brit1981]

There is no getting away from the fact he alerted to coconut in the jersey care home fiasco. If we had only relied on eddie and Grime's interpretation of Eddies alerts we would have been treating jersey as a murder enquiry. Luckily it was decided not to rely on the dog, and get the material tested. Because he alerted to specific material it was possible to prove him wrong, but if he alerts just to an area he cannot be proved wrong so we are being told that in tis instance he must be right. Its illogical, the dog has been proved to be inaccurate, Grimes has admitted they make mistakes.
Also how can they say training the dog using decomposing pork ensures they do not alert to decomposing pork.
I am also confused by this statement in the link you gave "The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in
the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened
separately. "
When you actually see the video you do not see eddie locating the toy in the cupboard. You see after he has been directed to the cupboards on more than one occasion, him standing away from the cupboards and barking. At no point does he bark towards the cupboard, or identify the particular cupboard he is alerting to (the cupboard was actually three or four cupboards joined together in a row). You do not even see them opening the cupboard at this point, they go out of the room, only to come back a few minutes later, and Grimes go straight to the middle cupboard and pull out the toy. There is no way they could say it was cuddle cat he alerted to, and given that he had previously ignored the toy it is a huge assumption to make that of all the things in the cupboard that was what he was alerting to.

also it says "When passing a vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family, the dog's behaviour changed substantially. This then produced an alert indication at the lower part of the drivers door where the dog was biting and barking."
It looks different on the video. On the video eddie passes the mccann car (the only one covered in find madeleine stickers) just as he does all the others, the handler stops at the car though, and keeps calling the dog back until eventualy he barks at the door. he also barks at another car.

 

[badhorsie]

Brit1981 said above
"Also how can they say training the dog using decomposing pork ensures they do not alert to decomposing pork"

This is why they use, in training these dogs, decomposing stillborn piglets. This is a whole different ball game from rotting pork which had previously prepared for human consumption. I live in the country and have smelled a decomposing pig and sheep, there is no comparision between rotting animal and gone off meat

Also I have yet to see where Eddie alerted to a coconut shell. They found this shell or "skull" when digging where he had alerted. Also found were fragments believed to be human bones and a quantity of milk teeth.

These dogs and Mr Grimes had an excellent reputation with the South Yorkshire Police before being involved in two highly controversial cases.
The smear campaign against this man is most distasteful IMO

 

[K9Snoop]

Eddie was not wholly trained in the UK.

Clickable original documents at link

Thank you for posting this link. Because this incident occured on the other side of the Pond, I have not followed it as closely as I may have done if it occured in the U.S. Doing a quick skim-read it appears that Mr Grimes's credentials makes him qualified in his field. He appears to have extensively been involved in dog training and in detection work. As to the training of the dogs, if they are passing the recognized required testing then it is concluded that they are qualified to. This should be quantified with the dog's training records (if required by the agency)

One of the things I did not get from the documents was if Mr Grimes was told or knew which apartment was used by the Mccanns prior to the dogs work. If he was not told until after the dogs had worked it and he made his call then it lends validity to the alerts. When searching the boxes of clothes (?) there is mention that it was unknown what the boxes contained. So I was unable to determine if those alerts were valid but I suspect that this event was staged as a kinda "blind" test of the dogs. I would not put it past the investigating officers to have inserted a *known* cadaver odor box into the line-up to see if the dogs alerted and which ones. If the dogs alerted correctly then it lends validity to the other alerts.

This is not an unknown tactic by investigators to do some of their own discrete testing of dog teams. If your dog fails to alert on *known* samples then other alerts are held suspect. However, if the dog does alert correctly then subsequent alerts are held with a higher regard.

Brit makes an argument with the cupboards and the cuddle-cat. I have not seen any video of this work but wonder if it was only this section that is shown. Perhaps there is additional footage showing other cupboards searched with negative results but edited out to only show the section with the alerts? There is no mention of who put the cat into the cupboard or if Mr Grimes was aware of it. If Mr Grimes was not told prior to the search, then it doesn't really matter who put the cat there. What matters is if the handler knew it was there or not.

I will say this about videos. Alot of canine behavior nuance is lost in the translation. I worked a murder case several years ago where the dog work was taped. When viewed at the time, the behavior was blatantly obvious to all the officers and handlers. By the time the case made it to trial three years later, we were again called on to view the tape. The behaviors, so obvious then, had lost their impact and definition. Things so clear then were not so clear 3 years later. The Eddie tapes by comparison show some very defined body languages changes (BLC). There is no harm in re-casting a dog past an area where you get those BLCs. Most of us will re-cast the dog into an area where we didn't get the BLCs before returning back to the target area. While a handler could trigger the trained alert, the handler cannot trigger the body language changes that occur when the dog encounters the target odor.

 

[K9Snoop]

There is no getting away from the fact he alerted to coconut in the jersey care home fiasco.

I did some internet searching on this. On the surface the case gives all the appearance of being the "hot potato" that no one wanted to handle. The events, as I have read them to be, is that builders doing some work at the site uncovered some items believed to be human bones. Later searching turned up calcined bone and some other assorted pieces. The police and pathologist offered that they were not human but an anthropologist later determined that some of the items (teeth and piece of pelvis) were in fact human. What I could not find was any explaination of how teeth and calcined bone ended up in a cellar. Which begs the question if it was standard practice at the time to dispose of these materials in these locations.

There are two possible explainations for the argument of why the dog alerted on coconut husk First and foremost (this is the one I lean toward as most accurate) is that the coconut husk is wood and wood will absorb odors. If the husk was in the presence of HR material for years it will actually build up and retain large amounts of odor as a cumulative effect. The fact that the coconut is not human does not matter. It's the odor the dog alerts to, not the material on which the odor is deposited.

The second is what some one termed as "The Yahtzee Box effect". This effect was seen when dogs, searching a large space for a hide that was placed in the middle of the area above the dogs' heads. The dogs all had BLCs but alerted on the game box that was off by itself on the floor near the middle of the room. The thought was the dogs had been trained to alert in as close a proximity to the material as they could. Because the stuff was located above their heads, the box was the closest physical thing the dogs could get to. The fact that they alerted on the box does not invalidate the alert. They simply chose the box as the means to convey the alert.

 

[brit1981]

Brit1981 said above
"Also how can they say training the dog using decomposing pork ensures they do not alert to decomposing pork"

This is why they use, in training these dogs, decomposing stillborn piglets. This is a whole different ball game from rotting pork which had previously prepared for human consumption. I live in the country and have smelled a decomposing pig and sheep, there is no comparision between rotting animal and gone off meat
I am a scientist and there is no difference between decomposing porcine material from a still born piglet, and a piece of decomposing pork.

Also I have yet to see where Eddie alerted to a coconut shell. They found this shell or "skull" when digging where he had alerted. Also found were fragments believed to be human bones and a quantity of milk teeth.

These dogs and Mr Grimes had an excellent reputation with the South Yorkshire Police before being involved in two highly controversial cases.
The smear campaign against this man is most distasteful IMO

The coconut shell is very famous. Look at the reports before and after it was discovered it was coconut shell. they thought it was part of a skull due to the dog alerting, and then it was tested and discovered to be old coconut shell. Those trying to claim the dog is always 100% correct despite the fact that they are banned from being used as evidence see to go for more and more convulted reasons - the dogs are trying to signal where they can, the coconut could, maybe, possibly, have absorbed something etc. They are desperate not to have to say these dogs which are banned from being used as evidence, which their handler admits can make mistakes, could have made a mistake. These dogs are not evidence, they and their handlers are not scientists, it cannot be that they have to be trusted beyond the trust placed in anything else.

they no longer work for SY police, and did not do that many cases, less than ten a year I believe. Grimes no longer has a license to practice in the UK.
telling the truth about the dog making a gigantic mistake, is not a smear campaign, One cannot be expected to lie to make the dog look more accurate than it is by claiming it successfully alerted when it did not.people seem to becoming up with more and more convulted ways to prove the dog cannot possibly make a mistake, although as far as I am aware this dog and its handler have not undergone independednt blinded tests. It is not fair that people can claim the dogs are always accurate and are therefore evidence against the mccanns, and then accuse those that point out the truth about the dogs of launching a smear campaign.

As for the cuddle cat incident. At no point does eddie alert to it. He is seen on the video ignoring it more than once. He is then seen being repeatedly to called to an area where there was a horizontal cupboard consisting of three or four sections and for the first few times ignoring the cupboards. he eventually stands just beyond the cupboard at its corner, facing away from it and barks. Then for some reason it is decided for eddie, the handler, and the camera person to go into another room. When they come back the handler goes straight to the cupbaord. Despite eddie not alerting to any area of the cupboard the handler goes straight away to the middle section and takes out the cat. At no point do we see when the cat was put there, at no point do we see what else is in the cupboard, at no point do we hear an explanation of why the handler chose to go to the middle cupboard first, at no point do we hear on the vidoe or in grime's report why it was decided that it had to be the cat the dog was alerting in to. They just say the dog alerted to the cat after it was put in a cupboard, which does not match what is seen in the video.

 

[badhorsie]

They found the coconut shell AFTER he had alerted in a particular place.
What is it about this that people do not understand?

I am assuming that you are an expert on cadaver dogs Brit1981, do you have experience? credentials?

 

[K9Snoop]

The coconut shell is very famous. Look at the reports before and after it was discovered it was coconut shell. they thought it was part of a skull due to the dog alerting, and then it was tested and discovered to be old coconut shell. Those trying to claim the dog is always 100% correct despite the fact that they are banned from being used as evidence see to go for more and more convulted reasons - the dogs are trying to signal where they can, the coconut could, maybe, possibly, have absorbed something etc. They are desperate not to have to say these dogs which are banned from being used as evidence, which their handler admits can make mistakes, could have made a mistake. These dogs are not evidence, they and their handlers are not scientists, it cannot be that they have to be trusted beyond the trust placed in anything else.

they no longer work for SY police, and did not do that many cases, less than ten a year I believe. Grimes no longer has a license to practice in the UK.
telling the truth about the dog making a gigantic mistake, is not a smear campaign, One cannot be expected to lie to make the dog look more accurate than it is by claiming it successfully alerted when it did not.people seem to becoming up with more and more convulted ways to prove the dog cannot possibly make a mistake, although as far as I am aware this dog and its handler have not undergone independednt blinded tests. It is not fair that people can claim the dogs are always accurate and are therefore evidence against the mccanns, and then accuse those that point out the truth about the dogs of launching a smear campaign.

Brit,

I really have been trying to sit on the fence here to address some of your specific statements with explanations and answer general questions derived from a logical thought process based on the scientific research available to me, my education, training, and experience within the field of canine scent detection. I don’t make up convoluted answers nor am I desperate to say that dogs are infallible because that serves no purpose. I am not saying dogs do not make mistakes although in my experience the problem lies more with the humans being wrong than the dog. Be that as it may, Mr. Grimes does not say his dogs are infallible. He says, rightfully so, that the alerts must be taken in context and validated by hard science. However, hard science is sometimes hard to get because the instrumentation is just not sensitive enough. Or there is not any actual physical substances, such as blood or fluid, there to be collected. Such an alert is called "unsubstantiated" which is either proved or disproved by other means such as witness statements or photographic images. Most of the research was being conducted by the dog handlers because they were the only ones interested in the subject. Normally, science only really starts looking at something when there is a possibility of a commercial return ( aka, someone gets to make a whole pot of money off it). Because of this, only been limited scientific research done but there is a small group of pure research types starting to take a look at it because they got involved with the questions posed with scent detection when they got involved with canine sar.

One of the things you stated really stuck with me. It was your statement of “the common belief in scientific studies is that it only lasts for about thirty days after a corpse has been removed,”. Scientific studies do not operate on ‘beliefs’. Beliefs are what normal non-scientific types use to explain stuff based on their life experiences. Scientific studies takes “the common belief’ and then either proves or disproves them. Now a study can be inconclusive (neither proved nor disproved) but if a study is citing “beliefs” for “facts” then something is very wrong with the study.

However, there are other ways of proving something scientifically. For example, it can be proved through empirical investigation in which a scientific concept manifests itself in an observable way. It can also be proved with a criteria that is reliable in clearly outlined situations, reproducible under controlled circumstances, and defined by an objective measure (the bulk of scent detection work). Or, thirdly, is viewed as disembodied knowledge or information which is characterized by algorithms and a knowledge base to define behavior.

Brit, you have some very strong positions with regards to cadaver scent detection training. How it is being handled (in your words “sloppy&#8221, the testing process, and the material used to train the dogs. I sure hope that you have chosen to get involved with the detection dog process to help correct these glaring deficiencies. From lobbying the necessary people to lift the ban on using human remains material to train human remains detecting dogs so they don’t have to rely on artificial chemicals in the hopes of getting it right to establishing an independent third-party testing process to ensure the dogs are acceptably certified. It’s all well and good to complain that things are not being done right but then you must make the effort to get things better. I encourage you to help increase the accuracy of detection dogs by developing a course of study and outline the structured training necessary to achieve that level.

I don't know if you are currently not involved with search dogs in the U.K. but if not that you get up with your local team and volunteer as a dog body. Ideally, getting a dog of your own to train would help you learn the process forward and backwards.

 

[brit1981]

Dog handlers are not scientists, we are just being asked to trust their opinions, and their interpretations on faith alone. I am a scientist, and I can see when people talk about dogs that they are not scientists. there is a reason why the opinions of dog handlers and their interpretations are not allowed to be considered evidence in courts, whilst those of scientists are. Scientists are expected to back up their claims, it is expected that their findings can be backed up by other scientists and the process they used must be repeatable, dog handlers are not expected to meet these stringent requirements. but a dog handler can just say "i believe the dog, I trained, alerted therefore in my opinion this indicates a body was here", thats it, they do not have to back it up in the minds of many, yet by a few they are taken as being beyond reproach.
Dogs are fine when they are taen out to actually find bodies, but it is comical for people to try to claim that they should be treated as some sort of scientific tool for ascertaining whether a body had ever actually been there.

As for eela, on her first visit to the flat she did not alert, on the second visit she did alert. Therefore she made a mistake on one of these visits. When the area she alerted to was tested, nothing was found.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/06/08/second-dog-alerted-decomposition-anthonys-yard
The above contains some testimony from a cadaver dog handler in the anthony case, where she says a dog could alert to decomposing material lie nail or blood from a living person.

 

[brit1981]

K9,
On a seperaste note, in Grimes report he says " I am the Special Advisor to The U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in relation to their Canine Forensic Program.". Note he says not "a special advisor" but "THE special advisor".
Is that normal for the FBI to employ someone based so far outside the US, and not a US national, as the special advisor, especially one who is still employed as a basic PC in the police. Also when Grimes was in SYP he and Eddie only worked on 37 cases, only seventeen of those on their own, and in total only found five bodies, only one of which was found on their own. It seems odd that the FBI would pick him as their special advisor on use of canines, and not an american. I thought america was far ahead in the use of dogs, is that incorrect?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Dog handlers are not scientists, we are just being asked to trust their opinions, and their interpretations on faith alone. I am a scientist, and I can see when people talk about dogs that they are not scientists. there is a reason why the opinions of dog handlers and their interpretations are not allowed to be considered evidence in courts, whilst those of scientists are. Scientists are expected to back up their claims, it is expected that their findings can be backed up by other scientists and the process they used must be repeatable, dog handlers are not expected to meet these stringent requirements. but a dog handler can just say "i believe the dog, I trained, alerted therefore in my opinion this indicates a body was here", thats it, they do not have to back it up in the minds of many, yet by a few they are taken as being beyond reproach.
Dogs are fine when they are taen out to actually find bodies, but it is comical for people to try to claim that they should be treated as some sort of scientific tool for ascertaining whether a body had ever actually been there.

As for eela, on her first visit to the flat she did not alert, on the second visit she did alert. Therefore she made a mistake on one of these visits. When the area she alerted to was tested, nothing was found.
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/06/08/second-dog-alerted-decomposition-anthonys-yard
The above contains some testimony from a cadaver dog handler in the anthony case, where she says a dog could alert to decomposing material lie nail or blood from a living person.

Incorrect.

The areas the dogs alerted to were forensically processed before the dogs even got near the place.

The Forensic results were consistent with the blood or body fluid of Madeline being present in areas LATER alerted by Eddie and Keela, such as BEHIND THE SOFA, and in the car later hired by the McCanns.

How do you explain this massive coincidence?

 

[brit1981]

Incorrect.

The areas the dogs alerted to were forensically processed before the dogs even got near the place.

The Forensic results were consistent with the blood or body fluid of Madeline being present in areas LATER alerted by Eddie and Keela, such as BEHIND THE SOFA, and in the car later hired by the McCanns.

How do you explain this massive coincidence?

You are incorrect.
The FSS said the only biological material they tested from the house did not match any of the mccanns aside from the sample of saliva from madeleine's pillowcase which was used as her test sample. They tested the curtains and said nothing was found there. They tested the car and said the material could not be indentified as belonging to any particular bodily fluids, and whilst they could say it came from between three to five people, they could nto identify who it belonged to. They could say that it contained components that Madeleine's DNA had, but that 100% of Madeleines components would be found in he rparent's DNA, and that many people included some of those at FSS shared these same components.
I do not know where you have got the information that Madeleine's DNA was identified as it is not true. read the FSS report. Here it is:

This is his complete report
"This report summarises the results of DNA profiling tests conducted on a number of samples submitted to the Birmingham laboratory of the Forensic Science Service(R) from the Leicestershire Constabulary on behalf of the Pol - ia Judiciaria and Laboratorio De Policia Cientifica on 7th August 2007 This report is marked for the attention of Detective Superintendent Prior; however I understand and accept that the contents of this report will be shared with the necessary authorities in Portugal.

I have received from my colleague, Sarah Vraitch, copies of the reference DNA profiles of Gerald McCann (CB/1), Kate Healy (CB/2), Amelie McCann (SBM/2) and Sean McCann (SBM/3). I have also received a copy of the DNA profile obtained from the possible saliva staining on the pillow case (SJM/1) which is assumed to be the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.

A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material on the swab (3A) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material on the wet swab (3B) from the same area was unsuccessful in that no profile was obtained.

Weak and incomplete DNA results which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from cellular material on the wet and dry swabs (14A & B} from the back of the sofa.

A weak and incomplete DNA result which showed indications of having originated from more than one person was obtained from cellular material on the dry swab (15A) from the back of the sofa.

A DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people and which appeared to have originated from at least two males who had contributed the majority of the DNA was obtained from cellular material obtained from the wet swab of the sofa (15B). in my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Gerald McCann or Madeline McCann contributed DNA to this result. The DNA from this swab has not been subjected to LCN DNA profiling tests.

A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the edges of tile 2 286/2007-CRL(2) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from a further area on tile 2 and two areas on tile 3 (286/2007-CRL(3) were unsuccessful in that no profiles were obtained.
A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only two unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the hem of one of the blue curtains 286A/2007-CRL(16(2)) from the apartment.

An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from one area of the plastic luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(2))) from the motor vehicle was unsuccessful in that no DNA profiles were obtained.

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least two people was obtained from a second area of the plastic luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(2))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the fibre coated luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(1))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

Low level incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b, 15a; the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2; the swabs from the tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 2 areas 1 and 2 and 3 area 1. In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results.
An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swab from area one of the luggage compartment section (286C/2007 CRL 10) was unsuccesful in that no profile was obtained.
An incomplete LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from a male was obtained from cellular material from the swab (286A/2007 CRL 1a & b). The profile did not match any of those previously tested in this case.

An incomplete LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from a female was obtained from cellular material from the swab (286A/2007 CRL 4a & b). The profile did not match any of those previously tested in this case.
An incomplete LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from a male was obtained from cellular material from the swab (286A12007 CRL 9a & b). The profile did not match any of those previously tested in this case. Furthermore, it did not match the profile obtained from the swab, 286A/2007 CRL 1a & b.
Mixed LCN DNA results which appeared to have originated from at least two people were obtained from cellular material recovered from the swabs (286A/2007 CRL 2a & b, 5a 7 b, 7a & b, 10a & b and 12a & b). in my opinion there is not evidence to support the view that any of the McCann family contributed DNA to Yhis result.
Attempts to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs 286A/2007 CRL 11a & b & 13a & b and from tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 3 area 2 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profiles were obtained; possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
LCN DNA results which contained too little information for meaningful interpretation were obtained from cellular material on the swabs 286A/2007 CRL 6a & b and 8a & b).
LCN DNA results which appeared to have originated from at least three people and which were too complex for meaningful interpretation were obtained from cellular material recovered from the swabs taken from the tiles 286/2007 CRL 1, 6, 7,8, 10 & 11).

An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs from the tiles 286/2007 CR/L 5 stains 1, 2 & 3 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profile was obtained.

An LCN DNA result which contained to little information for meaningful interpretation was obtained from cellular material on the swab from the tile (286/2007 CR/L 9).

Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
A low level LCN DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3b). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Madeleine McCann contributed DNA to this result.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. In my opinion this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation.The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found. "

So the only bit relating to Madeleine was "286A/2007 CRL 3a". and that did not say it was her DNA just that all of the components in this were found in Madeleine's dna. However it states it is from more than one person. DNA componets are not in any way unique, not only will we share 100% of our components with our parents, other relatives and even complete strangers will share our compoents (even a stranger may have 100% same componets). It is the sequence of the components that are unique (like letters and words).

 

[BritsKate]

Dog handlers are not scientists, we are just being asked to trust their opinions, and their interpretations on faith alone. I am a scientist, and I can see when people talk about dogs that they are not scientists. there is a reason why the opinions of dog handlers and their interpretations are not allowed to be considered evidence in courts, whilst those of scientists are. Scientists are expected to back up their claims, it is expected that their findings can be backed up by other scientists and the process they used must be repeatable, dog handlers are not expected to meet these stringent requirements. but a dog handler can just say "i believe the dog, I trained, alerted therefore in my opinion this indicates a body was here", thats it, they do not have to back it up in the minds of many, yet by a few they are taken as being beyond reproach.
Dogs are fine when they are taen out to actually find bodies, but it is comical for people to try to claim that they should be treated as some sort of scientific tool for ascertaining whether a body had ever actually been there.

As for eela, on her first visit to the flat she did not alert, on the second visit she did alert. Therefore she made a mistake on one of these visits. When the area she alerted to was tested, nothing was found.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/06/08/second-dog-alerted-decomposition-anthonys-yard
The above contains some testimony from a cadaver dog handler in the anthony case, where she says a dog could alert to decomposing material lie nail or blood from a living person.

BBM

Detectives aren't scientists either and yet we expect them to utilize experience, insight, and training to catch the bad guys. It is never a detective's hunch that convicts a criminal though - it is the evidence the detective's hunch helps to locate.

Cadaver dog testimony isn't inadmissible globally. There was a time when DNA, serology, chemical analyses, hair and fibers also weren't admissible without a fight.

(As an aside I have a much beloved Rottie/Alsatian 4 year old who happens to be a lot smarter than some folks I know. Sadly with an abuse history she could never train for SAR or HRD but she teaches me daily just how amazingly intelligent and perceptive dogs can be.)

 

[BritsKate]

To get verified as a professional poster: Rules Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[brit1981]

To get verified as a professional poster: Rules Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

I would get in trouble with work if I did that.

 

[brit1981]

BBM

Detectives aren't scientists either and yet we expect them to utilize experience, insight, and training to catch the bad guys. It is never a detective's hunch that convicts a criminal though - it is the evidence the detective's hunch helps to locate.

Cadaver dog testimony isn't inadmissible globally. There was a time when DNA, serology, chemical analyses, hair and fibers also weren't admissible without a fight.

(As an aside I have a much beloved Rottie/Alsatian 4 year old who happens to be a lot smarter than some folks I know. Sadly with an abuse history she could never train for SAR or HRD but she teaches me daily just how amazingly intelligent and perceptive dogs can be.)

Detectives have to be able to prove their evidence i.e videoed interviews etc. Scientists have to carry out their work in such a way any scientist can repeat it. they could not for instance come up with a process only they can do and understand and be allowed to claim it is good evidence. Defence and prosecution cna both provide scientists and have their witness look at the evidence, however this is not done with dogs. In fairness this is because it is not used as evidence. I thin the way people have tried to claim these dogs are never wrong (not Grimes, but minority of general public) will mean these dogs are going to tested more vigoursly in the future, and the handlers given a tough time in court. It is the people who have put so much faith in the dogs alerting being some sort of proof that have created this situation.

 

[SapphireSteel]

You are incorrect.
The FSS said the only biological material they tested from the house did not match any of the mccanns aside from the sample of saliva from madeleine's pillowcase which was used as her test sample. They tested the curtains and said nothing was found there. They tested the car and said the material could not be indentified as belonging to any particular bodily fluids, and whilst they could say it came from between three to five people, they could nto identify who it belonged to. They could say that it contained components that Madeleine's DNA had, but that 100% of Madeleines components would be found in he rparent's DNA, and that many people included some of those at FSS shared these same components.
I do not know where you have got the information that Madeleine's DNA was identified as it is not true. read the FSS report. Here it is:

This is his complete report
"This report summarises the results of DNA profiling tests conducted on a number of samples submitted to the Birmingham laboratory of the Forensic Science Service(R) from the Leicestershire Constabulary on behalf of the Pol - ia Judiciaria and Laboratorio De Policia Cientifica on 7th August 2007 This report is marked for the attention of Detective Superintendent Prior; however I understand and accept that the contents of this report will be shared with the necessary authorities in Portugal.

I have received from my colleague, Sarah Vraitch, copies of the reference DNA profiles of Gerald McCann (CB/1), Kate Healy (CB/2), Amelie McCann (SBM/2) and Sean McCann (SBM/3). I have also received a copy of the DNA profile obtained from the possible saliva staining on the pillow case (SJM/1) which is assumed to be the DNA profile of Madeleine McCann.

A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material on the swab (3A) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material on the wet swab (3B) from the same area was unsuccessful in that no profile was obtained.

Weak and incomplete DNA results which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components were obtained from cellular material on the wet and dry swabs (14A & B} from the back of the sofa.

A weak and incomplete DNA result which showed indications of having originated from more than one person was obtained from cellular material on the dry swab (15A) from the back of the sofa.

A DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people and which appeared to have originated from at least two males who had contributed the majority of the DNA was obtained from cellular material obtained from the wet swab of the sofa (15B). in my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Gerald McCann or Madeline McCann contributed DNA to this result. The DNA from this swab has not been subjected to LCN DNA profiling tests.

A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only a few unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the edges of tile 2 286/2007-CRL(2) from the apartment floor. An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from a further area on tile 2 and two areas on tile 3 (286/2007-CRL(3) were unsuccessful in that no profiles were obtained.
A weak incomplete DNA result which consisted of only two unconfirmed DNA components was obtained from cellular material recovered from the hem of one of the blue curtains 286A/2007-CRL(16(2)) from the apartment.

An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from one area of the plastic luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(2))) from the motor vehicle was unsuccessful in that no DNA profiles were obtained.

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least two people was obtained from a second area of the plastic luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(2))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

A low level mixed DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the fibre coated luggage component (286C/2007-CRL(10(1))) from the motor vehicle. In my opinion this result is too complex to interpret at this stage.

A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.

Low level incomplete DNA results, which in certain circumstances showed a contribution of DNA from more than one person were obtained from biological material on the following swabs: 286A/2007 CRL 14a, 14b, 15a; the swab from the hem of the curtain 286A/2007 CRL 16 curtain 2; the swabs from the tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 2 areas 1 and 2 and 3 area 1. In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone from the McCann family contributed their DNA to them results.
An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swab from area one of the luggage compartment section (286C/2007 CRL 10) was unsuccesful in that no profile was obtained.
An incomplete LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from a male was obtained from cellular material from the swab (286A/2007 CRL 1a & b). The profile did not match any of those previously tested in this case.

An incomplete LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from a female was obtained from cellular material from the swab (286A/2007 CRL 4a & b). The profile did not match any of those previously tested in this case.
An incomplete LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from a male was obtained from cellular material from the swab (286A12007 CRL 9a & b). The profile did not match any of those previously tested in this case. Furthermore, it did not match the profile obtained from the swab, 286A/2007 CRL 1a & b.
Mixed LCN DNA results which appeared to have originated from at least two people were obtained from cellular material recovered from the swabs (286A/2007 CRL 2a & b, 5a 7 b, 7a & b, 10a & b and 12a & b). in my opinion there is not evidence to support the view that any of the McCann family contributed DNA to Yhis result.
Attempts to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs 286A/2007 CRL 11a & b & 13a & b and from tile pieces 286/2007 CRL 3 area 2 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profiles were obtained; possibly due to the absence of sufficient good quality DNA.
LCN DNA results which contained too little information for meaningful interpretation were obtained from cellular material on the swabs 286A/2007 CRL 6a & b and 8a & b).
LCN DNA results which appeared to have originated from at least three people and which were too complex for meaningful interpretation were obtained from cellular material recovered from the swabs taken from the tiles 286/2007 CRL 1, 6, 7,8, 10 & 11).

An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs from the tiles 286/2007 CR/L 5 stains 1, 2 & 3 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profile was obtained.

An LCN DNA result which contained to little information for meaningful interpretation was obtained from cellular material on the swab from the tile (286/2007 CR/L 9).

Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3a). The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive; it is not possible attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
A low level LCN DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab (286A/2007 CRL 3b). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that Madeleine McCann contributed DNA to this result.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. In my opinion this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation.The curtains (286A/2007 - CR/L 16 and 16B) and the piece of white curtain (286B/2007 - CR/L 1) and the fragments of bushes (286/2007 CR/L 21) were examined for the presence of blood. No blood was found. "

So the only bit relating to Madeleine was "286A/2007 CRL 3a". and that did not say it was her DNA just that all of the components in this were found in Madeleine's dna. However it states it is from more than one person. DNA componets are not in any way unique, not only will we share 100% of our components with our parents, other relatives and even complete strangers will share our compoents (even a stranger may have 100% same componets). It is the sequence of the components that are unique (like letters and words).

This report was biased in that it did not emphasise that 15 OUT OF 19 MARKERS MATCHED.

Quote from Focus Magazine interview with GA *translated

Focus – A newspaper reported that your book could be summed up as "murder, the dog wrote", given the fact that it was the cadaver odour and the blood that were found that led you to sustain the theory that Madeleine McCann died. What do you actually know beyond the dogs?

Gonçalo Amaral – That comment only reveals the ignorance of the person who wrote it. The technique of residue collection using special dogs like these, CSIs, is usual in England, in the United States and it has already led to more than 200 condemnations. The laboratory where the samples [of blood, cadaver odour and DNA from Maddie] were analysed has corroborated these experts' work.

Focus – It has corroborated it, but it does not specify that they belong to Maddie McCann.

G.A. – They can only match that from Madeleine McCann, because the lab had the twins' DNA and it was not a match. Those are 15 out of 19 markers that match.

The fact that 15 out of 19 markers matched is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT but the way the report was written did not note this. 15 out of 19 is pretty much a positive, just not positive enough for the experts to swear an absolute.

If you read the language it is very neutral, it doesn't say EXCLUDES the McCanns in many places, it just says its not enough to confirm.

Another example of skewed science.

 

[BritsKate]

Detectives have to be able to prove their evidence i.e videoed interviews etc. Scientists have to carry out their work in such a way any scientist can repeat it. they could not for instance come up with a process only they can do and understand and be allowed to claim it is good evidence. Defence and prosecution cna both provide scientists and have their witness look at the evidence, however this is not done with dogs. In fairness this is because it is not used as evidence. I thin the way people have tried to claim these dogs are never wrong (not Grimes, but minority of general public) will mean these dogs are going to tested more vigoursly in the future, and the handlers given a tough time in court. It is the people who have put so much faith in the dogs alerting being some sort of proof that have created this situation.

Is it though? Really? I seem to be reading that the dogs are wrong, full stop, simply because no body was located. Several scenarios have been used to attempt to show that there are times when the dog is still right despite the lack of immediate recovery of a body. No one on this site has ever claimed a dog is never wrong but I do feel it important to acquiesce to the knowledge our verified HRD & SAR posters have obtained through their training and experience.

My point is that the dogs are a tool, like a detective's gut, and should never be utilised as an absolute but rather a smaller piece of the larger picture. Neither though should they be refuted entirely without merit simply because we don't understand their processes and cannot prove, or disprove, a case on their imprint alone. MOO

 

[BritsKate]

O/T and because I find it fascinating:
In the last ten years or so several anthropologists and archaeologists have begun utilising HRD dogs to locate ancient grave sites.

http://www.k9forensic.org/human-signature.htm

 

[K9Snoop]

Dog handlers are not scientists, we are just being asked to trust their opinions, and their interpretations on faith alone. I am a scientist, and I can see when people talk about dogs that they are not scientists. there is a reason why the opinions of dog handlers and their interpretations are not allowed to be considered evidence in courts, whilst those of scientists are. Scientists are expected to back up their claims, it is expected that their findings can be backed up by other scientists and the process they used must be repeatable, dog handlers are not expected to meet these stringent requirements. but a dog handler can just say "i believe the dog, I trained, alerted therefore in my opinion this indicates a body was here", thats it, they do not have to back it up in the minds of many, yet by a few they are taken as being beyond reproach.

Many dog handlers are ruled to be Expert Witnessess when giving court testimony (and expert according to my dictionary is someone with a high degree of skill or knowledge of a specific subject.) And while it may surprise you, dog handlers don’t operate on faith. We can’t. What we operate on is the training, education, and experience. Training Records is what allows us to draw determinations on the reliability of a particular dog and team. We also tend to run more than one dog over a given area to either confirm or not other alerts. Documentation of what the dog is taught, how often it is done, substances used and of what variety and how much, age of the substances and/or how long it was placed in a location prior to being worked, etc. Many include weather and terrain features such as altitude, wind, humidity, time of day, temperature, barometer reading, what type of clouds cover is present, ground cover, distracters such as food or dead animals, etc. And we conduct on our own research into Scent Theory and Movement, bodily fluids, gases, particles, bacteria. Sad to say my household budget cannot support the full-size research lab I would like so I have to wait until some scientist decides they want to validate in the lab something we are doing in the field. By the way, the definition of “scientist” is a person of science. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena”. So in many ways, I am also a scientist because I am a person who is engaged in the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena. If anyone is up for a bit of light reading, you can get further understanding through some of the following links. If necessary you can cut and paste into your brower.

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Scent/Settles_Sniffers.pdf - Sniffers: Fluid-Dynamic Sampling
for Olfactory Trace Detection in Nature and Homeland Security—The 2004 Freeman Scholar Lecture

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Scent/Settles 1997 Full-ScaleVentilation.pdf - Visualizing Full-Scale Ventilation Airflows

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Learning/Bentosela 2008.pdf - Effect of reinforcement, reinforcer omission and extinction on a communicative response in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Scent/Craven_2009.pdf - The fluid dynamics of canine olfaction:
unique nasal airflow patterns as an explanation of macrosmia

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Curran_2011.pdf - Evaluation of selected sorbent materials for the collection of volatile organic compounds related to human scent using non-contact sampling mode

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Hoffman_2009.pdf - Characterization of the volatile organic compounds present in the headspace of decomposing human remains

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/HRD/Vass.pdf : Decompositional Odor Analysis Database – Phase I

http://www.pawsoflife.org/Library/Scent/lorenzo.pdf : Laboratory and field experiments used to identify
Canis lupus var. familiaris active odor signature chemicals from drugs, explosives, and humans


I used to have to hunt for these articles there is a wonderful website at www.pawsoflife.org. Who has gone through the trouble for me. Go to the right side and click on the library link. It’s broken down into subject matter or general topics.

Dogs are fine when they are taen out to actually find bodies, but it is comical for people to try to claim that they should be treated as some sort of scientific tool for ascertaining whether a body had ever actually been there. .

Cops love it (as well as the prosecuting attorneys) when they can actually find what they want to find. And I don’t think anyone here is debating that but we don’t call dogs a scientific tool. What they are is an investigative tool. They are informants. They are giving you a potential lead or avenue for further investigation. Their testimony (if you characterize it as such) is considered circumstantial and should undergo further verification. Mr. Grimes said that multiple times in his report. However, here is where I think the conflict starts. When we have a dog alert and nothing is able to be located. Does this invalidate the alert? No.

As for eela, on her first visit to the flat she did not alert, on the second visit she did alert. Therefore she made a mistake on one of these visits. When the area she alerted to was tested, nothing was found.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2011/06/08/second-dog-alerted-decomposition-anthonys-yard
The above contains some testimony from a cadaver dog handler in the anthony case, where she says a dog could alert to decomposing material lie nail or blood from a living person.

Let me pull the following example. A person go up to a house, opens the door, steps inside a moment, stands there looking around before leaving, shutting the door. You get home from a day at work. You get to the front door, open it, and a blast of unwashed body odor hits you in the face. You know that odor shouldn’t be there. You have just moved into this house because in your last house you had several incidents of break-ins by some unwashed goons of the Skunk Squad before the cops arrested them. So you know what that odor means. The Skunk Squad is back! You call the cops, telling them you think someone broke into your flat. The responding officers don’t smell anything as you walk around saying “don’t you smell that?” but decide to humor you by calling in Forensics. Forensics, of course, don’t find any fingerprints or evidence of forced entry. Does this mean that someone wasn’t in your flat? No, of course not. It just means forensics was unable to recover physical evidence that someone opened the door and entered your flat. It doesn’t mean that the door wasn’t opened. It doesn’t mean that someone didn’t come in. It doesn’t mean that you didn’t smell what you smelt. So now we have you (playing the part of the dog) saying the door was opened and someone with reeking BO was there (the dog alert) but forensics saying you are a liar because there is no evidence of such. Who is believed? So what any good detective do when faced with conflicting data does, he looks for third party verification. He goes and knocks on a few doors until he finds someone who says they saw someone hanging around the front of your house. But that doesn’t mean anyone entered your house. Still knocking at doors he finds someone who says they saw a person standing at your door. But this doesn’t mean that someone entered your flat (which means you are still wrong), so he knocks further until, finally, he finds someone who saw a person exiting out of the door of your flat. With this the cop comes back to you with a guess-there-was-someone-in-your-flat statement and finally agrees with you that, yes, you were right. Gee, don’t you feel happy now? The cops were finally agreed with you that someone was in your flat as you stand there saying Of-course-I-told-you-that.

Welcome to the world of canine scent detection.

None us blindly follow our dogs. Most of us have years of training documentation on each and every dog we work. In other words if you did a task in the past and were right 9 times out of 10 in the past, the chances are 90% that you are right this time. Why would I not give you the benefit that you are not right? This isn't blind faith, this is earned respect. And we are our biggest doubters of our own dogs. We are constantly training, testing, and documenting what we do. We have to. Not only for our own peace of mind but to be able to deal with situations like this.