Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[brit1981]

I do not think it is great for the prosecution that Grimes testifies. Grimes was the dog handler involved in the jersey care home fiasco. basicly he got paid a huge amount of money partly for the use of his dogs which he said never gave false alerts and partly for being some sort of crime scene advisor for which he had no qualifications. His dogs alerted and there was a huge fuss made, the place was dog up, matrial was found that the dog alerted to, and the media was full of stories about how his dog had uncovered child murders in a childrens home etc. However, it turne dout that there were no bodies, there had been no murders, and that the piece of material his dog alerted to was coconut. It turns out that Grimes' dogs alert to bodily fluids as well as cadaver, so the fact they alert did not mean a body had to be there, he could have just been alerting to tissues containing bodily fluids that were present. It is one thing to say a dog has never given a false positive, but it is misleading if it is not made clear to people that the dog is trained to alert to bodily fluids so an alert is considered positive even if the dog is alerting to a bodily fluid and not a body. If the defence hear about the jersey fiasco they will have a field day.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I do not think it is great for the prosecution that Grimes testifies. Grimes was the dog handler involved in the jersey care home fiasco. basicly he got paid a huge amount of money partly for the use of his dogs which he said never gave false alerts and partly for being some sort of crime scene advisor for which he had no qualifications. His dogs alerted and there was a huge fuss made, the place was dog up, matrial was found that the dog alerted to, and the media was full of stories about how his dog had uncovered child murders in a childrens home etc. However, it turne dout that there were no bodies, there had been no murders, and that the piece of material his dog alerted to was coconut. It turns out that Grimes' dogs alert to bodily fluids as well as cadaver, so the fact they alert did not mean a body had to be there, he could have just been alerting to tissues containing bodily fluids that were present. It is one thing to say a dog has never given a false positive, but it is misleading if it is not made clear to people that the dog is trained to alert to bodily fluids so an alert is considered positive even if the dog is alerting to a bodily fluid and not a body. If the defence hear about the jersey fiasco they will have a field day.

Interesting post. I would like to read more about this Jersey childrens home case. Do you have a link or can you point me to where you got this information?

 

[redheadedgal]

brit1981--

1) it's "grime"... martin grime
2) the article i posted was about morse's record, not eddie's, so any discussion of coconut is moot
3) eddie did alert to bone and teeth at the site you refer to... i did the reading even though you provided no links to back up your assertions
4) it is not grime's nor eddie's fault as to how the media portrays or twists an unfolding story, so again, a non-issue
5) the FBI would not hire and work with trainers and dogs not deemed reliable/suitable for the job
6) i disagree with your understanding of these dogs and what they do; i see others do too (in the mccann forum)
7) the defense had a list of all witnesses, right?... pretty sure they could've tried to discredit mr. grime if they wanted/had evidence
8) i believe the dog

 

[Deleted member 39678]

brit1981--

1) it's "grime"... martin grime
2) the article i posted was about morse's record, not eddie's, so any discussion of coconut is moot
3) eddie did alert to bone and teeth at the site you refer to... i did the reading even though you provided no links to back up your assertions
4) it is not grime's nor eddie's fault as to how the media portrays or twists an unfolding story, so again, a non-issue
5) the FBI would not hire and work with trainers and dogs not deemed reliable/suitable for the job
6) i disagree with your understanding of these dogs and what they do; i see others do too (in the mccann forum)
7) the defence had a list of all witnesses, right?... pretty sure they could've tried to discredit mr. grime if they wanted/had evidence
8) i believe the dog

To start with, I noticed that I also referred to Martin Grime as "Grimes" and I do apologize for that error.

It appears to me that brit1981 was talking about a case in "Jersey" that Grime worked on and not the case in Detroit that you provided a link to. I didn't see any mention of any particular dog in brit1981's post.

If your aware of the site that brit1981 used to get this information can you share it with us? Maybe that's where you're getting the "media twists" opinion but I'm not sure.

I'm sure that the FBI only use's the best dogs available to them and that's why I've been asking if Martin Grime really worked the Lisa Irwin case or not. So far I'm not sure.

I'm not sure what's been said on the Mccann forum about dogs but if there are any links that are related to Lisa Irwin I'd like to see them.

There have been several cases talked about that could relate to a defense. We have the Detroit case that you provided a link to, a case in "Jersey", the Mccann case, and Lisa Irwin. So I'm not sure what the witness list you talk about means exactly.

And lastly, I'm not sure if "the dog" whichever dog made the hit, did a good or bad job. That's why it would be nice to know if Martin Grime and one of his dog's is the "FBI dog" that made the hit in the Irwin home. Stories about Martin Grime can come to the Lisa Irwin forum and have little relevance to her disappearance if he had no part in this case. JMO.

 

[brit1981]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html this link gives some of the basics. If you google you see earlier stories about the super dogs finding bodies at the home. There is also a police report saying that british sniffer dogs are often more of a hindrence in missing person's cases due to alerts when there is no body (in one case dogs alerted and the missing person turned up alive and well, and it was claimed the furniture was second hand and could therefore have come into contact with a body).
But regardless of which dog grimes used, the Jersey fiasco means that any defense aware of the jersey case would have a field day with grimes, do we really think the defence are going to not bring it up if they are aware of it because the same handler and trainer used a different dog.
In the mccann PJ files Grimes report states his victim recovery dog alerts to cadavers, and bodily fluids including those from living donors (i.e dried blood). Thats not me making a false assertion, Grimes has written it himself in black and white the dogs alert to things other than cadavers (his dogs are actually victim recovery dogs rather than cadaver or human remains recovery dogs).

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/MA...S_RIGATORY.htm

But like Ranch says it is a moot point if grimes was not involved in the Irwin case, as I think no two dogs are trained alike, although according to a dog handler involved in the casey anthony case her dog could alert to things like hair and nail from a living donor. I think before we can make assumptions on what the dog hits actually mean, we need to see what the handler says about them.

 

[redheadedgal]

lol-- more of the same (with non-working links). i stand by my post.


grime was at the irwin house. there are pics to prove it. therefore, the FBI trusts his dogs. that's enough for me. and many others here.

WHERE IS LISA??​

 

[Deleted member 39678]

lol-- more of the same (with non-working links). i stand by my post.


grime was at the irwin house. there are pics to prove it. therefore, the FBI trusts his dogs. that's enough for me. and many others here.

WHERE IS LISA??​

I've seen some pictures that may or may not be Martin Grime. Do you know if his dog is the "FBI dog" that made the hit at the Irwin home?

After reading the information that brit1981 provided, I would hope not. If this case ever goes to trial and the prosecution uses the dog hit, a defense lawyer will have some pretty good ammunition to use if it was one of Grimes dogs that made the hit.

 

[brit1981]

the links do work, at least for me. But google the PJ files and go to grimes and harrison's statements, and look up the jersey care home fiasco. Grimes clearly states that his dogs alert to bodily fluids as well as cadavers (his dogs are victim recovery dogs not actually human remains dogs), and no human remains were found in jersey, but just tissues containing bodily fluids. Why would Grimes lie and claim his dogs alert to bodily fluids if they do not? Why would the police lie and change their story and claim there were no bodies found in jersey?
I really hope the prosecution do not rely on grimes to sway the jury, or if they do that the defence have not heard of his previous work. he claims his dogs alert to bodily fluids including dried blood from a living donor, the jersey care home search was just a fiasco, and according to a freedom of information request issued to south yorkshire police where he worked his previous dog (eddie) only ever found one body by himself and only worked on thirty five case in total (this was up on the police website a few years ago, but has now gone due to passage of time, and can only be found on internet forums, but if you want it reconfirmed anyone anywhere in the world can just email the south yorkshire police and they will answer you).
The thing is, the only people who claim Grimes dogs do not alert to bodily fluids are people on the internet who have never worked with grimes, so how do they know enough to claim Grimes was incorrect in his statement to the PJ when he said they alerted to bodily fluids?

 

[iamnotagolem]

I don't care which dog got the hit, I've always been one to believe the hit. If it were in any way disputable, then the defense team would be all over it with something other than a lame "poopy diaper" claim.

 

[sarx]

I am pretty sure that it was more than one dog/handler team that hit on it, so...

 

[brit1981]

It is nto a case of not believeing a hit, because we do not know exactly what the particular dog alerts to - Grimes dogs according to Grimes also alert to bodily fluids that came from a living person (i.e dried blood, but not fresh blood) so a correct alert does not mean a body was there if no body was found. I cannot speak for other dogs, but this is what grimes has claimed about his dogs (which are not actually cadaver or human remains dogs but victim recovery dogs). I know in the Uk there have been cases of alerts and the missing person turned up alive, and in the trial of casey anthony a dog handler involved in the case said her dog alerted to things like old nail or hair from a living person. So unless we have the actual reports from the specific handler involved we cannot say for certain what the alerts mean even if we assume they are correct as it seems there are differences between the dogs.

In the irwin case I thought the parents had not been arrested so there has been no chance for the handlers to be cross examined by the defence.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I am pretty sure that it was more than one dog/handler team that hit on it, so...

I would hope that they used more than one dog in order to verify the hit, but we don't know if that's a fact. And if claims, both good or bad, about certain handlers and certain dogs are brought to this forum it would nice to know if in fact they even worked this case. JMO.

 

[sarx]

I'm not sure if it was answered and I just missed it, but can someone point me to where Grimes has personally made these various statements about zero false positives, alerts on other bodily fluids, etc.
Thanks so much.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I don't care which dog got the hit, I've always been one to believe the hit. If it were in any way disputable, then the defense team would be all over it with something other than a lame "poopy diaper" claim.

I think that I've come up with a couple of ideas that could cause one to doubt that the dog hit means that Lisa's dead body was inside the bedroom. I agree that the diaper claim is lame. JMO.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I'm not sure if it was answered and I just missed it, but can someone point me to where Grimes has personally made these various statements about zero false positives, alerts on other bodily fluids, etc.
Thanks so much.

Here's a link to a trial in Detroit in which Grime testified.

Grime said the dogs detect only the generic scent of human decomposition. The dogs, he said, cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.

Grime testified in court Friday that Morse has never had a false positive response, and that testing done just prior and after the dog worked in the Jones case was successful

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120824/METRO01/208240420#ixzz2667BFH8d

And here's a link of a case in Jersey that looks like he had a problem.

Eddie the sniffer dog - the animal that had supposedly found the 'scent of death' in the Portuguese flat where Madeleine McCann disappeared - no longer had a licence for UK police forensic work when Harper started using him in Jersey. Eddie, whose owner, Martin Grime, was paid £93,600 for less than five months' work, triggered the first excavations by barking at a spot where Harper's team then unearthed what was claimed to be part of a child's skull. In fact, as a Kew Gardens expert has now confirmed, it was a piece of coconut shell.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz2667Xd7Zv

There's some other information at this link but I haven't gone thru all of it yet.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id157.html

 

[sarx]

Ok, so all of this about Grimes is being based on a case 4 years old? The info about 3 dogs as well?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Ok, so all of this about Grimes is being based on a case 4 years old? The info about 3 dogs as well?

His work on the Jersey case is from 4 years ago. The Detroit case is from this year. And if it wasn't his dog that made the hit in the Irwin home then his record and his dogs records mean little in regards to that event. If it was Grime then his record and his dogs records would be fair game to discuss no matter how far back. JMO.

 

[sarx]

His work on the Jersey case is from 4 years ago. The Detroit case is from this year. And if it wasn't his dog that made the hit in the Irwin home then his record and his dogs records mean little in regards to that event. If it was Grime then his record and his dogs records would be fair game to discuss no matter how far back. JMO.

Got it, TY. Just trying to make sense of it all. Looks like Keela would be almost 9, likely getting ready for retirement if not already depending.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Got it, TY. Just trying to make sense of it all. Looks like Keela would be almost 9, likely getting ready for retirement if not already depending.

Your welcome. I found a report by Martin Grime from the McCann case where he writes about the training of dogs and the use of pigs in training assessments.

In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated
assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States.
These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I
introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the
animals alerted to the medium. (The products were obtained from whole piglet
cadaver not processed food for human consumption). The result from
scientific experiments and research to date is suggestive that the scent of
human and pig decomposing material is so similar that we are unable to 'train'
the dog to distinguish between the two. That is not to say that this may not be
possible in the future.

This report was written 5 years ago. What do you think about it. Was it true then but not now, or was it an inaccurate statement even then. Or is it a true statement today that dogs can't distinguish between human and pig decomposing material.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

 

[brit1981]

In his report to the PJ which is linked to in a couple fo above posts he states that his victim recovery dog alerts to bodily fluids. I suppose because the dog is being used to find an actual body, and was not trained to be used as an indicator of whether a body was there or not, it does not generally matter if he alerts to bodily fluids so long as the body is found. However it becomes an issue if no body is found, or it is found elsewhere, and the dog alerts are used as evidence a body was in a place where it was not found. I assume that when Grimes stated his dog alerts to bodily fluids he means older bodily fluids that have themselves began to decompose as opposed to fresh ones because he says the victim recovery dog would alert to dried blood from a living person, but not fresh blood. It would appear (if this is the case with Morse) that it is a bit misleading not to clarify this when he talks about human decomposition - I mean when someone talks about human decomposition we tend to imagine they mean a decomposing body, not a decomposing bit of dried blood from where someone had a nose bleed or dropped a piece of nail or hair. Also in Grimes report on the mccann case he states that the cadaver scent can occurr by transferance i.e someone can get the cadaver scent on them and then transfer it to other places. This would make me want to find out who had been in Lisa's bedroom too, as if there had been a search or forensic team that had come into contact with a cadaver or something a cadaver had been in contact with it could, assuming Grimes is correct, have caused transferance to Lisa's bedroom. There was a case in the UK (google shannon mathews) where victim recovery dogs alerted in the home of a missing child, but the child turned up alive. One reason given for the alerts was that the furniture may have once been in the home of someone who died.