Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[Oriah]

And I think there are still a lot out there training for just that, entire bodies, so it further complicates the issue.

That's true- it does complicate things. Again- why training methods are so important should a case go to court.

 

[Evan's Mom]

That house is over 50 years old, so it's not unreasonable to assume a previous owner could passed away in that master bedroom from natural causes some years before Lisa was ever born.

Would the dog still hit?
How long after a person passes will a dog hit?

 

[sarx]

That house is over 50 years old, so it's not unreasonable to assume a previous owner could passed away in that master bedroom from natural causes some years before Lisa was ever born.

Would the dog still hit?
How long after a person passes will a dog hit?

Well, that's a tough one that has been discussed in the HRD thread multiple times. Dogs can find remains over 700 years old if they're trained for it. Some dogs cannot find anything unless the person has been dead for a few hours, some can pick up the scent after just a few minutes of death. Some dogs are trained to find minute trace evidence while some are trained to find a body or larger pieces.

I have a feeling not much of this applies though... The media was pulled back because they were using techniques that they didn't want filmed. To me this means they were using dogs with very specific training, likely for the purpose of looking for something or someone very specific. Thus, eliminating the "death in the house prior" scenario.

 

[Camille]

From what I understand they hit on human decomp which could be even something as simple as say tissue that had been left from a bad scrape and had decomposed or if there had been blood from a cut that had decomped because if there is enough of it and the surface is conducive you can never really get it all cleaned up.


I did a google search on it and it lead me back to a post here that is pretty informative. [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7273912"]Human Remains (*cadaver) Detection (HRD) dog questions and answers **NO DISCUSSION** - Page 7 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[natsound]

Well, that's a tough one that has been discussed in the HRD thread multiple times. Dogs can find remains over 700 years old if they're trained for it. Some dogs cannot find anything unless the person has been dead for a few hours, some can pick up the scent after just a few minutes of death. Some dogs are trained to find minute trace evidence while some are trained to find a body are larger pieces.

I have a feeling not much of this applies though... The media was pulled back because they were using techniques that they didn't want filmed. To me this means they were using dogs with very specific training, likely for the purpose of looking for something or someone very specific. Thus, eliminating the "death in the house prior" scenario.

You are clearing up many gray areas for us... thank you.

 

[Oriah]

That house is over 50 years old, so it's not unreasonable to assume a previous owner could passed away in that master bedroom from natural causes some years before Lisa was ever born.

Would the dog still hit?
How long after a person passes will a dog hit?

Certain HRD dogs would alert in this situation. We discussed this in the HRD thread in depth.
It all depends on the training the dog(s) have had.

If that is the case, the dogs' training records should show what it has been trained to alert on. Aged human remains vs more recent human remains. HTH.

 

[marlame]

Well, that's a tough one that has been discussed in the HRD thread multiple times. Dogs can find remains over 700 years old if they're trained for it. Some dogs cannot find anything unless the person has been dead for a few hours, some can pick up the scent after just a few minutes of death. Some dogs are trained to find minute trace evidence while some are trained to find a body are larger pieces.

I have a feeling not much of this applies though... The media was pulled back because they were using techniques that they didn't want filmed. To me this means they were using dogs with very specific training, likely for the purpose of looking for something or someone very specific. Thus, eliminating the "death in the house prior" scenario.

Sarx, Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge with all of us here!

"Specific training" is the BIG Question...Were the dogs that hit on the scent in the BR trained to exclude (negatively conditioned) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen so as not to alert on residual scent from a live human when encountering these substances during a search?

So frustrating that this hasn't been answered!

 

[natsound]

Sarx, Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge with all of us here!

"Specific training" is the BIG Question...Were the dogs that hit on the scent in the BR trained to exclude (negatively conditioned) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen so as not to alert on residual scent from a live human when encountering these substances during a search?

So frustrating that this hasn't been answered!

I would think the investigators would have wanted specifically trained dogs in this instance. We don't know, but IMO we can take an educated guess that investigators covered their bases.

 

[Karmaa]

BBM:
NO. That's one of the first errors. HRD dogs (Human Remains Detection) dogs should be trained on human remains, and human remains ONLY.

Pigs are not human.

This is where scent training becomes a vital component in court.

Mvhoo, of course.

From what I read, since human cadaver scent is restricted, many dogs are actually trained on pig remains, which are said to be similar to human. I would imagine that the higher-level FBI dogs are given access to human cadaver fluids.

If a HRD dog actually finds a body, there is no question that the hit was good and the body is the proof. In court, as far as i know, the problem is that if there is no body, should a hit be usable as evidence? (Is that right - is that the issue?) Sorry - I was just researching WHAT could hit, not the legalities - but I think the questions surfaced in the Lacey Peterson and then again in the Madelaine McCann cases.

A HRD dog hit can be used as probably cause for a warrant, like it was in this case, but from what I can tell the controversy is whether it can be used as actual "evidence", which holds a higher standard. It's like polygraphs - in some states (not ALL), polygraphs can be used as probable cause to get a warrant, but they can not be used as evidence in a trial.

Anyway - I agree that IF a cadaver dog hit is ever going to be usable as trial EVIDENCE, they should have been trained on human scent, but as far as finding a stinky decaying corpse - I guess pork would probably be close enough.

(By the way - OMG! the pictures on some of those articles are DISGUSTING! I would be way too afraid of actually finding one of those rotted bodies to ever be a dog handler. I had nightmares just from the pictures!)

 

[sarx]

It's ok flutterby, at least now I know and can go look!

 

[Karmaa]

Sarx, Thank you for sharing your wealth of knowledge with all of us here!

"Specific training" is the BIG Question...Were the dogs that hit on the scent in the BR trained to exclude (negatively conditioned) the scent of human urine, feces, and semen so as not to alert on residual scent from a live human when encountering these substances during a search?

So frustrating that this hasn't been answered!

From what I have researched, there is NO WAY to discriminate between a dead body and other fluids because they all contain the same substances: cadaverine and putrescine, and that's what the dog is trained to hit on. All the dog can hit on is whether that scent that they are trained on is there, but there is no way for the dog to determine if it is from dead bodies, urine, semen, or gangrene.

If that scent uncovers a dead body - well there ya go! The smell came from a dead body. But if there is no body, there is no way to tell from the hit. At that point, they need to collect and analyze the items or area where the hit happened. If the hit was on a blanket for example, and lab analysis shows that the blanket was peed on but there is no blood, then there probably was not a dead body there.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Certain HRD dogs would alert in this situation. We discussed this in the HRD thread in depth.
It all depends on the training the dog(s) have had.

If that is the case, the dogs' training records should show what it has been trained to alert on. Aged human remains vs more recent human remains. HTH.

So without knowing the specific training of the dog that "hit" in the bedroom, its hard to say what that reported hit really means.

 

[sarx]

Certain HRD dogs would alert in this situation. We discussed this in the HRD thread in depth.
It all depends on the training the dog(s) have had.

If that is the case, the dogs' training records should show what it has been trained to alert on. Aged human remains vs more recent human remains. HTH.

Or specific human remains.

 

[sarx]

From what I have researched, there is NO WAY to discriminate between a dead body and other fluids because they all contain the same substances: cadaverine and putrescine, and that's what the dog is trained to hit on. All the dog can hit on is whether that scent that they are trained on is there, but there is no way for the dog to determine if it is from dead bodies, urine, semen, or gangrene.

If that scent uncovers a dead body - well there ya go! The smell came from a dead body. But if there is no body, there is no way to tell from the hit. At that point, they need to collect and analyze the items or area where the hit happened. If the hit was on a blanket for example, and lab analysis shows that the blanket was peed on but there is no blood, then there probably was not a dead body there.

Surely if a dog can discriminate an endangered squirrel's poop from a non-endangered squirrels poop.... I can tell you that if I pop a squat in the woods everyone around here will just ignore it... and when we've gone into a hotel room they don't always hit on the bed (yet the light reveals a whole lot of what has gone on on that bed if ya know what I mean). Break it down, if they can't distinguish between any of this do you realize that they would be hitting on everything everywhere? It would be crazy and worthless.

 

[natsound]

So without knowing the specific training of the dog that "hit" in the bedroom, its hard to say what that reported hit really means.

But if we know what the cadaver dog was brought there for, then perhaps we can guess what the hit means.

 

[sarx]

But if we know what the cadaver dog was brought there for, then perhaps we can guess what the hit means.

Who knows, maybe this HRD dog was also trained in narc work and was looking for drugs or excretions from a user. We really have no idea and there are a whole lot of possibilities....

 

[natsound]

Who knows, maybe this HRD dog was also trained in narc work and was looking for drugs or excretions from a user. We really have no idea and there are a whole lot of possibilities....

Would that type of dog be called a cadaver dog?

 

[Oriah]

From what I read, since human cadaver scent is restricted, many dogs are actually trained on pig remains, which are said to be similar to human. I would imagine that the higher-level FBI dogs are given access to human cadaver fluids.

If a HRD dog actually finds a body, there is no question that the hit was good and the body is the proof. In court, as far as i know, the problem is that if there is no body, should a hit be usable as evidence? (Is that right - is that the issue?) Sorry - I was just researching WHAT could hit, not the legalities - but I think the questions surfaced in the Lacey Peterson and then again in the Madelaine McCann cases.

A HRD dog hit can be used as probably cause for a warrant, like it was in this case, but from what I can tell the controversy is whether it can be used as actual "evidence", which holds a higher standard. It's like polygraphs - in some states (not ALL), polygraphs can be used as probable cause to get a warrant, but they can not be used as evidence in a trial.

Anyway - I agree that IF a cadaver dog hit is ever going to be usable as trial EVIDENCE, they should have been trained on human scent, but as far as finding a stinky decaying corpse - I guess pork would probably be close enough.

(By the way - OMG! the pictures on some of those articles are DISGUSTING! I would be way too afraid of actually finding one of those rotted bodies to ever be a dog handler. I had nightmares just from the pictures!)

K9 HRD alerts are usually used for either reasonable cause or probable cause for SW's in my experience.

And no- porcine scent is nowhere near the same as human cadavaric scent, or a pseudo scent, for a properly trained dog.

Moo, of course.

 

[sarx]

Would that type of dog be called a cadaver dog?

It's not so much what type of dog as who is saying it. It is largely an outdated term that was used back for the original dogs who truly were just looking for "cadavers" (though even that word makes me jump my thoughts to the morgue personally, cuz who else besides morgues and schools use the word?) With it becoming a much more specialized field the term HRD came in, though there are a lot who are a bit slow to switch and for the media, let's face it, cadaver is way flashier.... And we all know they could care less about being accurate, so...

 

[sarx]

K9 HRD alerts are usually used for either reasonable cause or probable cause for SW's in my experience.

And no- porcine scent is nowhere near the same as human cadavaric scent, or a pseudo scent, for a properly trained dog.

Moo, of course.

Again, much like the shoe print outside the window (which turns out to be the gardener's or window cleaner's or the bloody shirt found crumpled up (that turns out to be from a kid getting smacked in the nose by a ball), HRD alerts fall right in there.

Oh, come on, you know you smell like a pig...:floorlaugh: