Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[Melon]

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.



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

Jumping off....

I would be curious to know what standards the FBI holds for the dogs they use. One of the archived threads here made mention of dogs that didn't hit on blood at all.:what: Do they require that the dogs have extensive scent discrimination training and other things?

I wonder if after the McCann case, were there any changes made to what the FBI expects from the dogs they call in.... I am sure it is something the average lay-person will never get the answer to, but I sure would love to know. There could be a lot of changes that have occurred in the training world of working scent dogs the 4-5 years that have passed.

 

[KsStormy]

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.



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

How many people have decomposing pigs in their house? And processed pork for human consumption is different than a pig fetus.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

How many people have decomposing pigs in their house? And processed pork for human consumption is different than a pig fetus.

Maybe the scent of a decomposing pig was transferred to the home. Or maybe what Grime's said about HRD dogs and the scent of decomposing pigs doesn't apply to the FBI dog that made the hit in the Irwin home. JMO.

 

[KsStormy]

Or maybe the FBI dog(s) hit on the scent of a human body, as LE stated.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Or maybe the FBI dog(s) hit on the scent of a human body, as LE stated.

The search warrant affidavit states dog not dogs.

The affidavit also revealed that "On October 17, 2011, an FBI cadaver dog was brought into the residence upon consent of (Jeremy) Irwin and Bradley. The cadaver dog indicated a positive 'hit' for the scent of a deceased human in an area of the floor of Bradley's bedroom near the bed."

So maybe the dog did in fact detect the scent of a deceased human. But was it the scent from a deceased Lisa Irwin?

Read more: http://www.kmbc.com/Lisa-Irwin-Sear...12264286/-/108618q/-/index.html#ixzz267dtth00

 

[KsStormy]

They bring in back ups to verify the original dog hit. And yes, if the dogs hit on the items removed from the home, it was Lisa, sad as that is.

 

[Oriah]

Jumping off....

I would be curious to know what standards the FBI holds for the dogs they use. One of the archived threads here made mention of dogs that didn't hit on blood at all.:what: Do they require that the dogs have extensive scent discrimination training and other things?

I wonder if after the McCann case, were there any changes made to what the FBI expects from the dogs they call in.... I am sure it is something the average lay-person will never get the answer to, but I sure would love to know. There could be a lot of changes that have occurred in the training world of working scent dogs the 4-5 years that have passed.

1st bbm: it depends on the training and standardization of the specific K9 and handler. Keep in mind that-for example narcotics, explosives, accelerants, live scents, HRD scents- these dogs are all specifically trained to distiguish between specific scents. If they are cross trained, then they are usually trained to alert specifically to the specific scent they are working with a specific alert. (Wow that was a lot of specificity. But it's true!)
I think Mr. Grimes may have been trying to explain this?

2nd bbm: the understanding of working K9's and their noses is always under construction.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

They bring in back ups to verify the original dog hit. And yes, if the dogs hit on the items removed from the home, it was Lisa, sad as that is.

I would assume that they would bring in another dog and handler to corroborate a positive hit. But what if another dog was brought in and it didn't hit at all.

Could LE still state in their affidavit for a search warrant that an FBI cadaver dog had a positive hit for human decomposition? It would be truthful so I don't see why not.

The search warrant states that evidence to be seized need to be relevant to a case of a missing child and include but not limited to DNA, fingerprints, cell phones and human decomp. It's hard for me to say exactly why the items were seized.

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

 

[Oriah]

I would assume that they would bring in another dog and handler to corroborate a positive hit. But what if another dog was brought in and it didn't hit at all.

Could LE still state in their affidavit for a search warrant that an FBI cadaver dog had a positive hit for human decomposition? It would be truthful so I don't see why not.

The search warrant states that evidence to be seized need to be relevant to a case of a missing child and include but not limited to DNA, fingerprints, cell phones and human decomp. It's hard for me to say exactly why the items were seized.

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

BBM: Yes.
Imvho, there is no way the general public is going to know what exactly this/these dog(s) were trained to alert to, until handler testimony comes into play in court. And frankly- maybe not even then.

 

[redheadedgal]

Imvho, there is no way the general public is going to know what exactly this/these dog(s) were trained to alert to, until handler testimony comes into play in court. And frankly- maybe not even then.

even if the KCMOPD stated the dog alerted to "the scent of a deceased human"? that sounds pretty specific to me...

maybe i'm not understanding what you're trying to say...

 

[redheadedgal]

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.

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."

Grmes clearly states that his dogs alert to bodily fluids as well as cadavers (his dogs are victim recovery dogs not actually human remains dogs)...

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 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 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.

the articles about eddie and keela (see link below) maintain that both dogs indicate a hit on blood (and bodily fluids?) with a passive alert (standing still with their nose at the source) and, additionally eddie alerts to the scent of death/decomp/cadaver odour with an active alert (in the video at the beach he's jumping excitedly and barking loudly) which he also demonstrated at both apartment 5A and at the rental car in portugal according to reports you link (one is still indicating a 404 error). so, it would seem he's been trained to alert via two vastly different styles of alerting depending what his nose locates. if this is the case (if i'm not misreading or misunderstanding the various reports/videos) it would be quite apparent to grime exactly what eddie was alerting to whether it be microscopic traces of blood (or other fluids?) or the smell of death. i would assume the same would be true for morse if he too was cross-trained and therefore grime would know exactly what morse alerted on and disclose this to KCMOPD -- who ultimately stated there was an alert to "the scent of a deceased human" (meaning: not blood (or other fluids?), not dirty diapers and not nail clippings). as well, there was no report of blood or other fluids found at the lister st. home which i would assume would've been made had those things been indicated/found. and therefore, imo, reporting that "the scent of a deceased human" was found, is pretty powerful.

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

 

[brit1981]

the articles about eddie and keela (see link below) maintain that both dogs indicate a hit on blood (and bodily fluids?) with a passive alert (standing still with their nose at the source) and, additionally eddie alerts to the scent of death/decomp/cadaver odour with an active alert (in the video at the beach he's jumping excitedly and barking loudly) which he also demonstrated at both apartment 5A and at the rental car in portugal according to reports you link (one is still indicating a 404 error). so, it would seem he's been trained to alert via two vastly different styles of alerting depending what his nose locates. if this is the case (if i'm not misreading or misunderstanding the various reports/videos) it would be quite apparent to grime exactly what eddie was alerting to whether it be microscopic traces of blood (or other fluids?) or the smell of death. i would assume the same would be true for morse if he too was cross-trained and therefore grime would know exactly what morse alerted on and disclose this to KCMOPD -- who ultimately stated there was an alert to "the scent of a deceased human" (meaning: not blood (or other fluids?), not dirty diapers and not nail clippings). as well, there was no report of blood or other fluids found at the lister st. home which i would assume would've been made had those things been indicated/found. and therefore, imo, reporting that "the scent of a deceased human" was found, is pretty powerful.

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

I can only speak about Grimes and in his statements to the PJ he is asked about whether the dogs make different signals depending on what they are alerting to and he says they do not. he says that forensic analysis is needed to confirm the exact substance, and the person it has come from. But he clearly states the signals from the dog are the same regardless of what the dog is alerting to. I think this is because when a bodily fluid decomposes it gives off the scent of decomposure just the same as a body decomposing gives off the scent. All the dog can tell is that human material is decomposing.
As for the videos, in the video of the car Eddie ignores the car initially and barks elsewhere, but after being called back to the mccanns car several times he does eventually bark there. When they took the car card fob out both he ad keela (who only alerts to blood according to grimes) alerted to the key fob and the material on it was found to belong to gerry mccann.

Melon,
I cannot speak for America but in the UK the use of victim recovery dogs has been called into question with police claiming they often hinder searches more thna they aid them if they alert where there is no body. The most famous case was the shannon mathews case where after recovery dogs alerted in her home the police became focused on the theory that she had died. In fact she was found alive despite the positive alerts in her home.

To be honest in any case I would want to hear from the handler exactly what the dog would alert to, rather than just the police who are not trained to use or interpret the dogs alerts claiming their alerts mean a dead body was there. This is what happened in the mccann case, the PJ who had no experience of these dogs claimed the alerts meant a body had been there, but then once grimes report was released it turned out this was not the case. the same in the casey anthony case, the handler was questione din court and it turned out her dog alerted to things like hair and nail, which was not the impression given before the trial in the media.

 

[Oriah]

I can only speak about Grimes and in his statements to the PJ he is asked about whether the dogs make different signals depending on what they are alerting to and he says they do not. he says that forensic analysis is needed to confirm the exact substance, and the person it has come from. But he clearly states the signals from the dog are the same regardless of what the dog is alerting to. I think this is because when a bodily fluid decomposes it gives off the scent of decomposure just the same as a body decomposing gives off the scent. All the dog can tell is that human material is decomposing.
As for the videos, in the video of the car Eddie ignores the car initially and barks elsewhere, but after being called back to the mccanns car several times he does eventually bark there. When they took the car card fob out both he ad keela (who only alerts to blood according to grimes) alerted to the key fob and the material on it was found to belong to gerry mccann.

Melon,
I cannot speak for America but in the UK the use of victim recovery dogs has been called into question with police claiming they often hinder searches more thna they aid them if they alert where there is no body. The most famous case was the shannon mathews case where after recovery dogs alerted in her home the police became focused on the theory that she had died. In fact she was found alive despite the positive alerts in her home.

To be honest in any case I would want to hear from the handler exactly what the dog would alert to, rather than just the police who are not trained to use or interpret the dogs alerts claiming their alerts mean a dead body was there. This is what happened in the mccann case, the PJ who had no experience of these dogs claimed the alerts meant a body had been there, but then once grimes report was released it turned out this was not the case. the same in the casey anthony case, the handler was questione din court and it turned out her dog alerted to things like hair and nail, which was not the impression given before the trial in the media.

BBM: Yes. Most people do. This is one of the reasons why standardization is so important in the training of working K9's. It saves time in court. If a case that involves K9 scent work as evidence goes to court- the explanation of specific training and alerts falls to the handler, to present to court a cohesive and accurate explanation within a (typically) very short period of time.

It is nowhere near as easy or simple as saying "My dog smelled a dead person."

 

[Deleted member 39678]

the articles about eddie and keela (see link below) maintain that both dogs indicate a hit on blood (and bodily fluids?) with a passive alert (standing still with their nose at the source) and, additionally eddie alerts to the scent of death/decomp/cadaver odour with an active alert (in the video at the beach he's jumping excitedly and barking loudly) which he also demonstrated at both apartment 5A and at the rental car in portugal according to reports you link (one is still indicating a 404 error). so, it would seem he's been trained to alert via two vastly different styles of alerting depending what his nose locates. if this is the case (if i'm not misreading or misunderstanding the various reports/videos) it would be quite apparent to grime exactly what eddie was alerting to whether it be microscopic traces of blood (or other fluids?) or the smell of death. i would assume the same would be true for morse if he too was cross-trained and therefore grime would know exactly what morse alerted on and disclose this to KCMOPD -- who ultimately stated there was an alert to "the scent of a deceased human" (meaning: not blood (or other fluids?), not dirty diapers and not nail clippings). as well, there was no report of blood or other fluids found at the lister st. home which i would assume would've been made had those things been indicated/found. and therefore, imo, reporting that "the scent of a deceased human" was found, is pretty powerful.

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

BBM
We have no idea what kind biological evidence LE may have collected in the Irwin home for further testing. We only have the receipt for the property that was removed from the home.

http://media2.nbcactionnews.com/NWT/pdf/20111021_irwinwarrant.pdf

 

[brit1981]

according to Grimes in a statement for the PJ his dogs alert even when forensic testing cannot confirm what the substance was.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

While doing some research on dogs I found a very interesting article about dog handlers "cueing" their dogs and how a UC Davis study may increase defense attacks and judicial skepticism in regards to detection dogs.

A 2011 study published in the journal, Animal Cognition, may, however, lead to a more general attack on the use of police detection dogs.[7] The study, written by three faculty members of the University of California at Davis, found that under a specific testing scenario where no drugs or explosives were in the testing environment, most canine teams participating in the study nevertheless alerted to the presence of drugs or explosives when the handlers had reason to believe that a target item had been placed in the environment.

In this lengthy article the authors do address some shortcomings in the UC Davis study but they also say this.

Canine evidence, long virtually ignored by defense counsel, is increasingly coming under rigorous attack, and handlers are spending more time in court defending the actions of their dogs and the interpretations they give those actions in criminal investigations. This is not inappropriate, as handlers should be able to defend their work. The Davis study should serve as a wake-up call for handlers to understand that sloppy work can make canine evidence suspect to courts and juries, as well as making life more difficult for handlers that already perform such work well.

http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arusensminger_papet2011.htm

 

[sarx]

This also goes to why dogs are just one investigative tool. They find something, then it is tested to verify. Science and dogs make a very nice partnering. It is also why it is so important to keep meticulous records during training and searches.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This also goes to why dogs are just one investigative tool. They find something, then it is tested to verify. Science and dogs make a very nice partnering. It is also why it is so important to keep meticulous records during training and searches.

I agree Sarx. With so little known about the "FBI dog" hit in this case, it's hard to draw any conclusions. JMO.

ETA. Other than the fact that it was enough for probable cause to get a search warrant.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

This also goes to why dogs are just one investigative tool. They find something, then it is tested to verify. Science and dogs make a very nice partnering. It is also why it is so important to keep meticulous records during training and searches.

I should also add that the article that I found is mostly about drug scenting dogs and traffic stops. These dogs are used to get probable cause to search the inside of cars suspected of carrying drugs. If a defense attorney can show (via dashcams) that the dog handler "cued" the dog to give a positive alert, then the search of the car and anything found would be inadmissible.

Now in the case of missing Lisa Irwin all we know about is an affidavit stating that an "FBI dog" made a positive hit for human decomposition in the Irwin home. We don't know if LE brought in another dog and handler and if they did we don't know if the second dog gave a positive "hit" or not. It doesn't matter. The single hit was good enough to get the search warrant. At this point all I see is probable cause for a search warrant and nothing else. JMO.

 

[redheadedgal]

But he clearly states the signals from the dog are the same regardless of what the dog is alerting to.

this contradicts the info grime talks about in the article i linked earlier... he mentions both a passive alert and a wildly barking alert in regard to eddie and there is video of eddie wildly barking at the beach during a training search.

do you have link to your source?