the cadaver dog

[brit1981]

Eddie and keela were just two of their search dogs. They would not employ any dogs if they thought they were 100% unreliable. But dogs are not considered to be reliable enough to use as evidence on their own. they are search dogs, used to find a body or blood. the fact that Eddie, being a cadaver dog alerts to all degrading human material regardless of whether the donor is alive or dead (i.e degrading hair or nails from a living person), means that as evidence that a body was once there he is not good, all anyone can say is that degrading human material was there or once was there (assuming the dog has not made a false alert obviously). But in a link I posted earlier, there has been talk of british police dogs being a waste of money when they are relied on too much. In the shannon mathews case cadaver dogs alerted in her home, but she was later found alive and well. There was also a big fuss made about the cost of the dogs used in the jersey scandal.
On another note, i would assume that if the Mccanns were involved, and had disposed of madeleine's body, there are only so many places she could be. I think it is fair to say if the Mccanns were involved given the time frames, she would have to be on land, on public property, somewhere a non-local who did not know the area well would be able to find at night, and within walking distance of the flat. Surely the dogs were taken to these sort of areas, and surely if she was there they would have alerted. A PJ sniffer dog apparently followed her scent down the street and then it stopped, which makes me thin a car could be involved, but would someone being carried leave a scent for a dog to follow? Do you know K9?
The British police did not develop incriminating evidence (that rumour I believe started from a UK consulate or ambassador informing his US counterpart of this in an email) as such, they provided the dogs, and the FSS services. The dogs and the FSS results were the basis of the PJ making them aguidos, but this was dropped when it was realised that these results did not amount to anything.

Yes you are right the relevance of the test results is zero. All it can say is that it cannot exclude madeleine from being a donor. If the material had been found in a car where none of her relatives had been then it would have been a stronger result. But given that it is impossible to see who donated those components, her or a relative, in these circumstances they mean nothing. I cannot help thinking the PJ were certain it was them, so perhaps thought overplaying the results would make them crack, or perhaps make those covering for them crack. Or perhaps the significance of these results was overplayed to them. Who knows?

From the dogs and the FSS results all anyone can say with certainty, assuming the FSs are correct and Grimes and the dogs are correct, is that in the Mccann flat there was evidence of blood which did not belong to the Mccanns, and degrading bodily fluid which could not be identified as belonging to any individuel, and in the car there was degrading bodily fluid, possibly including blood, which belonged to three to five people and madeleine Mccann cannot be excluded as being a donor, but neither can it be excluded that she was not a donor.
Millons of pounds of work, hundreds of people involved and in the end nothing of any value to indicate what happened. I really do think that if madeleine is ever found, or the culprit identified it will be down to pure chance and not as a direct result of the investigations. That is what happened with Jaycee Lee Dugard, Natascha kamplusch (is that her name), peter tobins first two known victims etc.

 

[K9Snoop]

Surely the dogs were taken to these sort of areas, and surely if she was there they would have alerted. A PJ sniffer dog apparently followed her scent down the street and then it stopped, which makes me thin a car could be involved, but would someone being carried leave a scent for a dog to follow? Do you know K9?

Yes, a person being carried will leave scent trail. It’s a scenario that many mantrailing handlers practice where someone lifts a baby and walks away with it. The dog is scented to the baby and can follow the baby even if its handed off multiple times to other people. Odor literally and figuratively rolls off a person (think of the character PigPen from the Peanuts comic strips). Tracking dogs use a combination of crushed vegetation smell as well as the human odor to work. Most police dogs are tracking dogs. Trailing dogs, with a few exceptions, use only human odor. This is the mantrailing dog usually depicted as a bloodhound although it can be any breed of dog. Depending on whether or not the dog is trained for car trails (it’s not the actual vehicle the dog is following. It is the human scent being released through the car venting system.) depends on how long a dog will continue the trail once the individual moves off in a vehicle. Most police or patrol dogs will track to the street, or a short ways down a street, before losing the odor due to the intensity gradient change.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Eddie and keela were just two of their search dogs. They would not employ any dogs if they thought they were 100% unreliable. But dogs are not considered to be reliable enough to use as evidence on their own. they are search dogs, used to find a body or blood. the fact that Eddie, being a cadaver dog alerts to all degrading human material regardless of whether the donor is alive or dead (i.e degrading hair or nails from a living person), means that as evidence that a body was once there he is not good, all anyone can say is that degrading human material was there or once was there (assuming the dog has not made a false alert obviously). But in a link I posted earlier, there has been talk of british police dogs being a waste of money when they are relied on too much. In the shannon mathews case cadaver dogs alerted in her home, but she was later found alive and well. There was also a big fuss made about the cost of the dogs used in the jersey scandal.
On another note, i would assume that if the Mccanns were involved, and had disposed of madeleine's body, there are only so many places she could be. I think it is fair to say if the Mccanns were involved given the time frames, she would have to be on land, on public property, somewhere a non-local who did not know the area well would be able to find at night, and within walking distance of the flat. Surely the dogs were taken to these sort of areas, and surely if she was there they would have alerted. A PJ sniffer dog apparently followed her scent down the street and then it stopped, which makes me thin a car could be involved, but would someone being carried leave a scent for a dog to follow? Do you know K9?
The British police did not develop incriminating evidence (that rumour I believe started from a UK consulate or ambassador informing his US counterpart of this in an email) as such, they provided the dogs, and the FSS services. The dogs and the FSS results were the basis of the PJ making them aguidos, but this was dropped when it was realised that these results did not amount to anything.

Yes you are right the relevance of the test results is zero. All it can say is that it cannot exclude madeleine from being a donor. If the material had been found in a car where none of her relatives had been then it would have been a stronger result. But given that it is impossible to see who donated those components, her or a relative, in these circumstances they mean nothing. I cannot help thinking the PJ were certain it was them, so perhaps thought overplaying the results would make them crack, or perhaps make those covering for them crack. Or perhaps the significance of these results was overplayed to them. Who knows?

From the dogs and the FSS results all anyone can say with certainty, assuming the FSs are correct and Grimes and the dogs are correct, is that in the Mccann flat there was evidence of blood which did not belong to the Mccanns, and degrading bodily fluid which could not be identified as belonging to any individuel, and in the car there was degrading bodily fluid, possibly including blood, which belonged to three to five people and madeleine Mccann cannot be excluded as being a donor, but neither can it be excluded that she was not a donor.
Millons of pounds of work, hundreds of people involved and in the end nothing of any value to indicate what happened. I really do think that if madeleine is ever found, or the culprit identified it will be down to pure chance and not as a direct result of the investigations. That is what happened with Jaycee Lee Dugard, Natascha kamplusch (is that her name), peter tobins first two known victims etc.

The important part to note here is that Eddie and Keela were walked all over the entire resort, and only picked up cadaver in apartment 5a.

When you consider how many apartments there are, the possibility of different guests passing away over the years, it is incredibly significant that they ONLY ALERTED IN 5A...coincidentally, the only apartment where a death is suspected of being covered up.

No matter what your personal opinion of sniffer dogs, this incredible coincidence cannot be dismissed.

Further, cadaver odor DOES NOT come from decomposing living tissue. Cadaver odor IS ONLY PRODUCED BY A CADAVER and the human body starts this chemical change immediately upon death.

My hair, skin cells or blood will NOT show cadaver, no matter how old and decomposed they are, because I'm not dead, nor was I when I dropped them.

I would have thought a DNA scientist would know this?

:banghead:

 

[K9Snoop]

Further, cadaver odor DOES NOT come from decomposing living tissue. Cadaver odor IS ONLY PRODUCED BY A CADAVER and the human body starts this chemical change immediately upon death.

My hair, skin cells or blood will NOT show cadaver, no matter how old and decomposed they are, because I'm not dead, nor was I when I dropped them.

Cadaver or HRD dogs do not alert to hair, nail clippings or skin cells because they are not trained for those odors because they are a common component in all living situations (houses, apartments, hotels, etc.) It doesn't matter if you are living or dead. Once human generated material is separated from the host, it begins to decompose and degrade.

Cadaver odor is a misnomer. People usually equate cadaver with a whole body but it is also the bits and pieces thereof. You've heard of burn victims getting "cadaver skin"? OR reconstruction victims getting "cadaver bone".

Cadaver odor does come from decomposing tissue. Tissue isn't living any more if it decomposing. If I cut my finger off of my hand (and I ain't dead yet- not by a long shot) that finger will begin to decompose and give off cadaver odor. That's why some prefer the term HR or HRD (human remains, human remains detection) dog instead of cadaver dog. Some are now saying decomp odor. Or odor of death. Basically, its an odor spectrum that has a particular scent make-up that dogs have been taught to alert on.

Most cadaver dogs, unless trained off of blood, will alert on it.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Cadaver or HRD dogs do not alert to hair, nail clippings or skin cells because they are not trained for those odors because they are a common component in all living situations (houses, apartments, hotels, etc.) It doesn't matter if you are living or dead. Once human generated material is separated from the host, it begins to decompose and degrade.

Cadaver odor is a misnomer. People usually equate cadaver with a whole body but it is also the bits and pieces thereof. You've heard of burn victims getting "cadaver skin"? OR reconstruction victims getting "cadaver bone".

Cadaver odor does come from decomposing tissue. Tissue isn't living any more if it decomposing. If I cut my finger off of my hand (and I ain't dead yet- not by a long shot) that finger will begin to decompose and give off cadaver odor. That's why some prefer the term HR or HRD (human remains, human remains detection) dog instead of cadaver dog. Some are now saying decomp odor. Or odor of death. Basically, its an odor spectrum that has a particular scent make-up that dogs have been taught to alert on.

Most cadaver dogs, unless trained off of blood, will alert on it.

Not true. Cadaver means "post-mortem".

Cadaver dogs can discern the scent of tissue that is decomposing off a LIVE body, and tissue that is decomposing off a DEAD ONE.

This is why they are referred to as "cadaver" dogs, not just sniffer dogs. The human body undergoes instant chemical change on death, which is identified by cadaver dogs.

A cadaver dog is not trained specifically for dead tissue from a live source, for example, limb retrieval for reattachment. They are trained specifically for dead tissue from a DEAD SOURCE.

This research project was initiated in January of 1997 as a response to a frequently asked question by agencies that use our services. How, we are asked, do the dogs define death? At what point during the decomposition process of a human body will the dogs demonstrate that they recognize the scent as post-mortem?

We set up this research project to begin to understand when and how our dogs can discriminate live scent from post-mortem scent. All of the dogs used in this project have been "cross-trained", that is trained in both the discipline of finding and indicating on live human scent and also on post-mortem (cadaver) scent. *

The general medical definition of death, "The irreversible cessation of respiratory and heart activity" (Spitz and Fisher, 1993), describes the exact moment a human being becomes a dead body. Physiologic changes begin immediately, and within the first two hours after death onset of lividity, chemical changes in the blood, relaxation of muscle tissue, and other changes have been documented. In fact, in some cases, lividity can be seen as soon as 15 minutes post-mortem. Between 2-4 hours after death, body temperature begins to drop (Haglund and Sorg, 1997), chemical changes in muscles begin and autolysis advances.

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

The scent of tissue from a LIVE BODY is different to the scent of tissue from a DECEASED ONE, decomposing or not.

 

[rashomon]

Your postings are so full of discrepancies, random claims and fallacies that I really have to wonder if your last name is McCann.

No one can argue with such blindly adamant (and false) assertions and not end up reduced to wading through a morass of ridiculousness.

Answer me one question - when Kate McCann ran from the apartment, why did she not call her daughter's name?

And why did Kate, as she ran from the apartment, leave the twins back in there, unprotected, with the window open and and patio door unlocked, when the 'abductor' might still be around somewhere nearby?

Rashamon,
The tile was identified as having DNA components that linked the DNA to either Gerry or Madeleine. It was not identified what material the DNA had come from. I think the tile was located behing the sofa (at least at the time of the search)

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
Was this the material from swab 3A?

From the FSS Lowe reoprt
[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 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.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id268.html[/FONT]

 

[K9Snoop]

Not true. Cadaver means "post-mortem".

Cadaver dogs can discern the scent of tissue that is decomposing off a LIVE body, and tissue that is decomposing off a DEAD ONE.

This is why they are referred to as "cadaver" dogs, not just sniffer dogs. The human body undergoes instant chemical change on death, which is identified by cadaver dogs.

A cadaver dog is not trained specifically for dead tissue from a live source, for example, limb retrieval for reattachment. They are trained specifically for dead tissue from a DEAD SOURCE.

Re: cadaver vs sniffer: I'm not sure why we don't use the term sniffer dog over here. Years ago there wasn't this definition between disciplines. There's a new one out, "Crime Scene Dog". As far as not being able to determine tissue removed from a living person and one from an individual deceased that's a new one to me. Considering that I have folks donate bits and pieces and body parts all the time for use. Teeth pulled from living folks, placenta, blood, surgical removal of whatever, and the odd traumatic amputation.

I]This research project was initiated in January of 1997 as a response to a frequently asked question by agencies that use our services. How, we are asked, do the dogs define death? At what point during the decomposition process of a human body will the dogs demonstrate that they recognize the scent as post-mortem?

We set up this research project to begin to understand when and how our dogs can discriminate live scent from post-mortem scent. All of the dogs used in this project have been "cross-trained", that is trained in both the discipline of finding and indicating on live human scent and also on post-mortem (cadaver) scent. *

When do you expect to have the results from this project available for review? One question I've had ever since I saw someone undergoing auto-amputation (badly overweight diabetic man whose legs below the knee were dead and sloughing off - yep, it smelt and looked as bad as it sounds) if I had run a dog on him would the dog alert to the dead, decaying flesh even though it was still attached to something living.

The general medical definition of death, "The irreversible cessation of respiratory and heart activity" (Spitz and Fisher, 1993), describes the exact moment a human being becomes a dead body. Physiologic changes begin immediately, and within the first two hours after death onset of lividity, chemical changes in the blood, relaxation of muscle tissue, and other changes have been documented. In fact, in some cases, lividity can be seen as soon as 15 minutes post-mortem. Between 2-4 hours after death, body temperature begins to drop (Haglund and Sorg, 1997), chemical changes in muscles begin and autolysis advances.[/I]

http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html

The scent of tissue from a LIVE BODY is different to the scent of tissue from a DECEASED ONE, decomposing or not.

Do you have the literature I can access to read up on this? I could understand this if the tissue sample from a living person was placed into a preservative solution such as formaldehyde which would impart a specific chemical odor but the difference as you describe.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I am surprised that a self-proclaimed K9 specialist would not be aware of the distinction. All you need to do to confirm this is

1. google "cadaver dogs"
2. realise that cadaver translates to POST MORTEM, ie, AFTER DEATH.

http://www.dogschool.com.au/Cadaver-Dogs-pg10907.html

Cadaver Dogs

The cadaver recovery dog is purposely bred, raised and trained to assist in the locating of deceased human’s remains. Our dogs are taught to correctly indicate on freshly dead bodies or bodies that are in a state of decreased decomposition due to environmental factors such as extremely cold conditions including very cold water, ice or snow.

They are also taught to indicate on putrefying remains and post putrefied skeletal remains of those victims whom have been buried or covered or left out in the elements. Soundly trained cadaver recovery dogs should be apt at working all types of environments including multi-casualty disaster sites, urban precincts, industrial areas, rural and bushland or even rainforests or pine forests.


No matter how rotten the skin cells, if they have come from a LIVE person they are not mistaken for cadaver. Death itself produces the changes that the cadaver dogs are trained for, NOT live people, no matter how "dead" seeming their flesh may be.

 

[brit1981]

cadaver dog is not the term used in the UK. eddie was actually an EVRD - an enhanced victim recovery dog. Grimes states in his report that Eddie alerts to bodily fluids including blood. So it is rather a moot point going into the definition of cadaver, as it is incorrect to call Eddie a cadaver dog, that is not a slang term as it were. But for the record cadaver actually just means body, or death it comes from the latin for "to fall". It does not mean after death at all. And a tissue can be dead even if the donor is still alive. It is a misunderstanding to think that the donor must be dead for the tissue to be dead.


Human tissue decomposing is human tissue decomposing. It does not matter if it is an arm amputated from a living person, an arm cut from a dead person, or other human tissue that is decomposing hair, blood etc. they will give off the same chemicals, ther eis no difference in the degradation process. Death occurs when the cells no longer get oxygen. So a human tissue not getting oxygen because it is no longer part of the living body is just as much dead as a human tissue not getting oxygen because the human body is dead. The dogs are trained to pick up the smell of decomposition regardless of the condition of the donor.

There are also no primary reports of the FSS losing hair. Did you get this information from the same source that led you to believe that the FSS was a privately owned company with no legal right to examine DNA, and links to the McCanns?

K9,
I was reading a report on the casey anthony case, and it said that the dog handler there claimed her dog would alert to nail clippings and the like. Is this not normal then in the US?

Rashamon.

I would have to look at the report again to be able to name the swabs. But they found a mixed sample of three to five people in the car which contained 15 of madeleine's 19 different components. All this could do was not exclude, but given that the sample was found in a place used by close relatives, it would not mean anythign even if all of her components were there. This is because inheritance works by each parent donating half of their components to their child, so every single component of Madeleine's would be found in a mix of DNA containing DNA from her parents. The fact that her grandparents and siblings also used this car increases the chance of her components being found.

They also found DNA in the flat that contained components common to Gerry and madeleine McCann.

 

[K9Snoop]

Human tissue decomposing is human tissue decomposing. It does not matter if it is an arm amputated from a living person, an arm cut from a dead person, or other human tissue that is decomposing hair, blood etc. they will give off the same chemicals, ther eis no difference in the degradation process. Death occurs when the cells no longer get oxygen. So a human tissue not getting oxygen because it is no longer part of the living body is just as much dead as a human tissue not getting oxygen because the human body is dead. The dogs are trained to pick up the smell of decomposition regardless of the condition of the donor.

This is what I am seeing in the field. The dogs I've worked with do not distinguish between flesh removed from a living person and flesh removed from a dead person. Once the tissue dies due to lack of oxygen and nutrients, dead flesh is dead flesh.

K9,
I was reading a report on the casey anthony case, and it said that the dog handler there claimed her dog would alert to nail clippings and the like. Is this not normal then in the US?

No, this is not normal but with a caveat. I have worked with some handlers who do use human hair and only that (no blood component) to train on. I do not because people lost hair all the time and I don't need the extraneous alerts. Just as some chose not to train on blood because a person can bleed somewhere but that doesn't mean they died there.

 

[~n/t~]

This is what I am seeing in the field. The dogs I've worked with do not distinguish between flesh removed from a living person and flesh removed from a dead person. Once the tissue dies due to lack of oxygen and nutrients, dead flesh is dead flesh.



No, this is not normal but with a caveat. I have worked with some handlers who do use human hair and only that (no blood component) to train on. I do not because people lost hair all the time and I don't need the extraneous alerts. Just as some chose not to train on blood because a person can bleed somewhere but that doesn't mean they died there.

Are you saying cadaver dogs and/or HRD dogs can't distinguish between human remains versus dead components like blood, hair from a living person?

I'm trying to understand.

I know one thing is they can distinguish from garbage (rotten food) and or diapers. IIRC, Madeleine's grandma (as did Cindy Anthony), tried to explain it away as rotten food and dirty nappies. IMO, that is BS. The other explanation given was both McCanns work in the medical field and worked with corpses so there could have been a transfer. Again, imo, that is BS. Who doesn't wash their clothes before a trip? Furthermore, the "doctors" would have been wearing Isolation gowns when handling a dead corpse.

:moo:

 

[K9Snoop]

I am surprised that a self-proclaimed K9 specialist would not be aware of the distinction. All you need to do to confirm this is

1. google "cadaver dogs"
2. realise that cadaver translates to POST MORTEM, ie, AFTER DEATH.

http://www.dogschool.com.au/Cadaver-Dogs-pg10907.html

Cadaver Dogs

The cadaver recovery dog is purposely bred, raised and trained to assist in the locating of deceased human’s remains. Our dogs are taught to correctly indicate on freshly dead bodies or bodies that are in a state of decreased decomposition due to environmental factors such as extremely cold conditions including very cold water, ice or snow.

They are also taught to indicate on putrefying remains and post putrefied skeletal remains of those victims whom have been buried or covered or left out in the elements. Soundly trained cadaver recovery dogs should be apt at working all types of environments including multi-casualty disaster sites, urban precincts, industrial areas, rural and bushland or even rainforests or pine forests.


No matter how rotten the skin cells, if they have come from a LIVE person they are not mistaken for cadaver. Death itself produces the changes that the cadaver dogs are trained for, NOT live people, no matter how "dead" seeming their flesh may be.

First, there is no reason to be snarky. And I have gone through the verification process with Websleuths. In the U.S., cadaver is a general term for ANY dog trained to alert on human remains or parts, fluids, or pieces thereof. As time has gone by, the people are making more of a distinction and changing the names. I mean look at what Eddie is termed as. What a mouthful. The term "sniffer dog" is purely general. All dogs could be termed 'sniffer dogs' because that's all they do all day, sniff around. I also noticed that the listed link indicates they train "Odour dogs". Well, isn't this also just as general term? As general as sniffer dogs? What's your point? Alot of the reason why the U.S. handlers are moving away from the cadaver dog term is that some consider it rude to the grieving family and somewhat callous and not accurately describing what the dogs do. Among lay folks there is the mispreception that they only will alert on a full body. The U.S. handlers are moving more toward the term Human Remains Detection dog as being more accurate and less unfeeling to the family's situation.

As far as the rest, in your last post you indicated that there was some ongoing study that showed that dogs can differentiate between flesh removed from a living person and flesh removed from a dead person. The bit of text you snipped out from the listed site states that their dogs are trained to alert on both fresh dead and decomposed dead. Please excuse, but I'm failing to see your point. I would love to see the data from the cited study that document your statement as this would be ground breaking among us cadaver/HRD/HR/ dog handlers.

 

[brit1981]

This is what I am seeing in the field. The dogs I've worked with do not distinguish between flesh removed from a living person and flesh removed from a dead person. Once the tissue dies due to lack of oxygen and nutrients, dead flesh is dead flesh.



No, this is not normal but with a caveat. I have worked with some handlers who do use human hair and only that (no blood component) to train on. I do not because people lost hair all the time and I don't need the extraneous alerts. Just as some chose not to train on blood because a person can bleed somewhere but that doesn't mean they died there.

I thought it was unusual, but apparently the handler in the anthony case, Brewer, claimed in court her dog would alert to hair and nail. Grimes also states in his report that his dog alerts to bodily fluid. I suppose because in the UK they are victim recovery dogs, rather than just cadaver dogs so are used to find bodies rather than as evidence of a corpse's presence, so it is not such a big deal, either they find a body or they do not. It would seem the dogs here are too sensitive to be able to reliably indicate whether a corpse was ever there or not if they alert to anything that has ever been in contact with a corpse, or a bodily fluid. In the UK there has been talk of the dogs needing better training as they can misdirect cases. We had a missing person's search where the dogs alerted, but the person was in fact alive. Second hand furniture was blamed, but given a huge amount of houses will have either had someone die in or second hand furniture that has been in a house where someone died it is difficult to differentiate. Add to the mix they alert to bodily fluids, and there are just too many variables.

 

[brit1981]

Are you saying cadaver dogs and/or HRD dogs can't distinguish between human remains versus dead components like blood, hair from a living person?

I'm trying to understand.

I know one thing is they can distinguish from garbage (rotten food) and or diapers. IIRC, Madeleine's grandma (as did Cindy Anthony), tried to explain it away as rotten food and dirty nappies. IMO, that is BS. The other explanation given was both McCanns work in the medical field and worked with corpses so there could have been a transfer. Again, imo, that is BS. Who doesn't wash their clothes before a trip? Furthermore, the "doctors" would have been wearing Isolation gowns when handling a dead corpse.

:moo:

Eddie, according to Grimes, alerts to bodily fluids, so he would alert to the contents of a nappy. And yes, if the dogs alert to human tissue that is decomposing they alert to human tissue that is decomposing, they cannot tell you whether the donor is alive or dead.

The Mccanns never claimed the alerts could be due to their work in the medical field, this was something that appeared in the media.
But just for the record in the Uk doctors would not wear isolations suits, unless the person had died from something really serious and contagious, or radiation. In the Uk whenever someone dies at home (or in an old person's home) the local GP is called to sign the death certificate. So the GP will arrive in their normal clothes go in, certify them dead, they would never turn up in an isolation suit for a normal death like this. the same in hospital, the doctor will be wearing their normal clothes (with a basic white coat, normally undone), and if someone dies they will go along in those same clothes. Even people carrying out pms do not wear isolations suits, just scrubs.

So going back to the dogs alerting, as Grimes states that Eddie does alert to bodily fluids, and decomposing bodily fluids from a live person will also result in alerts, all the alerts show is that they was a bodily fluid in the car and flat that had began to decompose. We have no idea whether this bodily fluid came from a living or dead person. And due to the FSS tests we now that whatever this was, it was so small that it could not be identified. The only tissue in the car that could be identified as a specific material was hair and nail.

 

[K9Snoop]

Are you saying cadaver dogs and/or HRD dogs can't distinguish between human remains versus dead components like blood, hair from a living person?

I'm trying to understand.

I know one thing is they can distinguish from garbage (rotten food) and or diapers. IIRC, Madeleine's grandma (as did Cindy Anthony), tried to explain it away as rotten food and dirty nappies. IMO, that is BS. The other explanation given was both McCanns work in the medical field and worked with corpses so there could have been a transfer. Again, imo, that is BS. Who doesn't wash their clothes before a trip? Furthermore, the "doctors" would have been wearing Isolation gowns when handling a dead corpse.

In the U.S., the terms are used interchangably by the handlers. I tend to use the older term cadaver dog because that was the term in use when I was learning the field and cops use the term themselves. When I talk with the general public or family then I use HR or HRD.

As far as transfer, yes, odor transfers but you have to weigh in that circumstancial comment with what the dogs are indicating. If I wear scrubs all the time in the morgue then I would expect transfer to those clothes. I would not expect transfer to my off-duty or social clothing unless I'm wearing those clothes to my job. Odors will penetrate the isolation gowns. Most of that clothing is to prevent fluids from soaking though not necessarily the smell.

 

[K9Snoop]

I thought it was unusual, but apparently the handler in the anthony case, Brewer, claimed in court her dog would alert to hair and nail. Grimes also states in his report that his dog alerts to bodily fluid. I suppose because in the UK they are victim recovery dogs, rather than just cadaver dogs so are used to find bodies rather than as evidence of a corpse's presence, so it is not such a big deal, either they find a body or they do not. It would seem the dogs here are too sensitive to be able to reliably indicate whether a corpse was ever there or not if they alert to anything that has ever been in contact with a corpse, or a bodily fluid. In the UK there has been talk of the dogs needing better training as they can misdirect cases. We had a missing person's search where the dogs alerted, but the person was in fact alive. Second hand furniture was blamed, but given a huge amount of houses will have either had someone die in or second hand furniture that has been in a house where someone died it is difficult to differentiate. Add to the mix they alert to bodily fluids, and there are just too many variables.

Which is why cadaver dog alerts are considered circumstancial and not probable cause. But the sensitivity is not necessarily a bad thing because people clean up crime scenes all the time to conceal the evidence. Sometimes that sensitivity is the only thing that alerts the investigators that something isn't right and further investigation is warranted.
You have to put the information given to you by the dogs into context with the rest of the case. It's not just that they alerted, it's also where they alerted and where they didn't. Why this apartment and not that one? Both are similar with similar foot traffic and occupancy. Why this car and not that car? Why the alert on this spot on the ground and not that spot on the ground? When the same person has access to all the locations (but not the other locations) then you have to start questioning why. What is the common thread between all the alerts?

 

[SapphireSteel]

First, there is no reason to be snarky. And I have gone through the verification process with Websleuths. In the U.S., cadaver is a general term for ANY dog trained to alert on human remains or parts, fluids, or pieces thereof. As time has gone by, the people are making more of a distinction and changing the names. I mean look at what Eddie is termed as. What a mouthful. The term "sniffer dog" is purely general. All dogs could be termed 'sniffer dogs' because that's all they do all day, sniff around. I also noticed that the listed link indicates they train "Odour dogs". Well, isn't this also just as general term? As general as sniffer dogs? What's your point? Alot of the reason why the U.S. handlers are moving away from the cadaver dog term is that some consider it rude to the grieving family and somewhat callous and not accurately describing what the dogs do. Among lay folks there is the mispreception that they only will alert on a full body. The U.S. handlers are moving more toward the term Human Remains Detection dog as being more accurate and less unfeeling to the family's situation.

As far as the rest, in your last post you indicated that there was some ongoing study that showed that dogs can differentiate between flesh removed from a living person and flesh removed from a dead person. The bit of text you snipped out from the listed site states that their dogs are trained to alert on both fresh dead and decomposed dead. Please excuse, but I'm failing to see your point. I would love to see the data from the cited study that document your statement as this would be ground breaking among us cadaver/HRD/HR/ dog handlers.

The dictionary definition of cadaver for you -
ca·dav·er
   [kuh-dav-er] Show IPA

noun
a dead body, especially a human body to be dissected; corpse.

This may also help -

At the time of biological death the individual scent emitted by someone undergoes a transformation. This change though not immediately detectable by humans, does affect the composition of the scent detected by dogs. The body goes through five stages of decomposition before it is skeletonised and the dogs are trained to react to the scent picture through the complete spectrum...there are no laboratory detection processes or equipment as sensitive as the canine’s olfactory system. The dog’s natural hunting instinct and their ability to detect scents cannot be defeated...when a person dies decomposition begins immediately protein synthesis in the body stops. With nothing to maintain the protective lining in the gut digestive enzymes eat the body from the inside out creating amino acids. While this is happening bacteria feed on those amino acids. According to a study in 2008 from the Journal of Forensic Science the process of decomposition produces 478 different scent signatures.
A dead human body is called a cadaver and dogs that are specifically trained to find bodies or remains of a body including the chemical residue left behind when a body has been moved, are classified as ‘Cadaver Dogs’ and or Human Remains Detection Dogs. These dogs are capable of finding the scent of a cadaver where there is no physically retrievable evidence.


When someone dies the scent from the cadaver, the smell of human decomposition gasses in addition to skin rafts emanates into the air. By definition scent is the bacterial, cellular and vaporous debris enshrouding the individual.

This illustrates why the scent of decomposing tissue off a LIVE body is different to decomposing tissue off A CADAVER.

The "scent of death" reflects the immediate chemical changes a body under goes when it ceases to be alive. They occur at a deep cellular level (indiscernable to humans but as unique as a fingerprint to cadaver dogs) and are immediate and ONLY occur if the human being is deceased.

http://britishspoofreportingonmccanncase.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/evrd-and-csi-dogs.html

 

[K9Snoop]

The dictionary definition of cadaver for you
ca·dav·er [kuh-dav-er] Show IPA noun
a dead body, especially a human body to be dissected; corpse
This may also help -

At the time of biological death the individual scent emitted by someone undergoes a transformation. This change though not immediately detectable by humans, does affect the composition of the scent detected by dogs. The body goes through five stages of decomposition before it is skeletonised and the dogs are trained to react to the scent picture through the complete spectrum...there are no laboratory detection processes or equipment as sensitive as the canine’s olfactory system. The dog’s natural hunting instinct and their ability to detect scents cannot be defeated...when a person dies decomposition begins immediately protein synthesis in the body stops. With nothing to maintain the protective lining in the gut digestive enzymes eat the body from the inside out creating amino acids. While this is happening bacteria feed on those amino acids. According to a study in 2008 from the Journal of Forensic Science the process of decomposition produces 478 different scent signatures.
A dead human body is called a cadaver and dogs that are specifically trained to find bodies or remains of a body including the chemical residue left behind when a body has been moved, are classified as ‘Cadaver Dogs’ and or Human Remains Detection Dogs. These dogs are capable of finding the scent of a cadaver where there is no physically retrievable evidence.

When someone dies the scent from the cadaver, the smell of human decomposition gasses in addition to skin rafts emanates into the air. By definition scent is the bacterial, cellular and vaporous debris enshrouding the individual.

This illustrates why the scent of decomposing tissue off a LIVE body is different to decomposing tissue off A CADAVER.

The "scent of death" reflects the immediate chemical changes a body under goes when it ceases to be alive. They occur at a deep cellular level (indiscernable to humans but as unique as a fingerprint to cadaver dogs) and are immediate and ONLY occur if the human being is deceased.

http://britishspoofreportingonmccanncase.blogspot.com.au/2011/12/evrd-and-csi-dogs.html

Sapphire, I really appreciate you posting the definitions. For the record, I am not disputing the definition of what a “cadaver” is. Nor am I disputing the whole body decomposition process. What I am working to clarify with you is the FACT that you do not need the whole body to get the production of the human decomposition odor that dogs need to alert on. So let me change this up. Cadaver/HR/HRD dogs are all taught to alert on the odor of decomposition of the human body, chopped off bits and pieces – whether from a living person or a deceased one, blood, and other fluids generated by the rotting process of any of the above mentioned, bone, adipocere, cremains, and so forth and so on. What the dogs are proofed off of are animal remains as well as human urine and fecal material. Some handlers take this further to include blood, hair, vomit, semen, nail clippings, vaginal secretions, dirty diapers, underwear, wood ashes, animal cremains, etc. Also for buried material, dogs have been known to indicate on the vegetation growing on or near the site due to the plants taking up the human material and the out-gasing from the leaves.

And to prevent further twisted knickers, I will try to avoid using the term “cadaver” with you in the future. O.K.?

This illustrates why the scent of decomposing tissue off a LIVE body is different to decomposing tissue off A CADAVER.

However, I need to clarify this. Dogs will alert to the tissue removed from a living body as well as the tissue removed from a deceased body once the material begins to undergo decomp. Tissue, in my sense of the word, means an actual physical chunk of flesh, skin, teeth, etc. It does not mean the sloughed off skin cells (skin rafts) that humans shed in the normal order of the skin regenerating process.

If you feel this is incorrect then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Out of curiosity, where do you get your training aids from?

 

[K9Snoop]

Someone has suggested that due to the differences in how folks in different countries or different parts of the world may have a different understanding or use in terminology of words based or culture, language, etc that perhaps when there is a question of how the term is used that the individual defines the term with how it means to them. This does not mean that others will keep with or agree with how you define the term. However, once the individual defines the term with how it means to them, then it serves no purpose to disagree, just put yourself in their situation and just roll with it to move the discussion along.

Cadaver for some means the whole body, cadaver for me, depending on the context or situation, may not. Sniffer dogs for some may mean a specific type of detection dog. Sniffer dogs to me is just a general term with no specific meaning as to the job the dog is taught to perform. Some handlers interchange the terms "tracking" and "trailing". For me, those are two distinct and different disciplines. Some interchange the terms 'alert' and 'indication'. Some define an 'alert' in a way that another handler will term as 'indication' and vis-a-versa.

One of the things interesting with this internet forum is the ability to discuss something that, in the normal course of our lives, we would never have the opportunity to. When someone posts something, I know that language has variations. When I use the word 'boot', I am normally not describing the trunk of a car. When I hear the term 'tramp' or 'tramper', are they talking a vagabond or bum or could mean a hike or hiker?

Perhaps, we need to cut ourselves some slack and allow others their otherness.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Someone has suggested that due to the differences in how folks in different countries or different parts of the world may have a different understanding or use in terminology of words based or culture, language, etc that perhaps when there is a question of how the term is used that the individual defines the term with how it means to them. This does not mean that others will keep with or agree with how you define the term. However, once the individual defines the term with how it means to them, then it serves no purpose to disagree, just put yourself in their situation and just roll with it to move the discussion along.

Cadaver for some means the whole body, cadaver for me, depending on the context or situation, may not. Sniffer dogs for some may mean a specific type of detection dog. Sniffer dogs to me is just a general term with no specific meaning as to the job the dog is taught to perform. Some handlers interchange the terms "tracking" and "trailing". For me, those are two distinct and different disciplines. Some interchange the terms 'alert' and 'indication'. Some define an 'alert' in a way that another handler will term as 'indication' and vis-a-versa.

One of the things interesting with this internet forum is the ability to discuss something that, in the normal course of our lives, we would never have the opportunity to. When someone posts something, I know that language has variations. When I use the word 'boot', I am normally not describing the trunk of a car. When I hear the term 'tramp' or 'tramper', are they talking a vagabond or bum or could mean a hike or hiker?

Perhaps, we need to cut ourselves some slack and allow others their otherness.

Once again, you seem to have skipped the vital information, even though I bolded it, so I will repost -

when a person dies decomposition begins immediately protein synthesis in the body stops. With nothing to maintain the protective lining in the gut digestive enzymes eat the body from the inside out creating amino acids. While this is happening bacteria feed on those amino acids.

These amino acids, which are ONLY PRODUCED ON DEATH, is what a CADAVER DOG is trained to alert to.

You can chop off as many limbs as you like and leave them to decompose for days, but if they are off a live person they will not have these amino acids. They are called "the scent of DEATH" for a reason - they are only produced by a CADAVER.