the cadaver dog

[fabgod]

So the dog alerted correctly as he was trained to do, the handlers that i have read about state that the dog is merely there to indicate and once the dog has done its job then it is up to forensics to do their job and corroborate the findings positively or negatively.
In the Shannon Matthews case the dog alerted so it wasnt a false positive the dog did its job, it was never there to find a specific person.

We only know what is in the PJ reports, we know that reports state that no one died in the resort previously but we cannot discount the possibility unless there is proof elsewhere that any furniture was possibly contaminated from somewhere else.

That still leaves the hire car, the cuddly toy and clothing from the McCanns though.

 

[Cappuccino]

So the dog alerted correctly as he was trained to do, the handlers that i have read about state that the dog is merely there to indicate and once the dog has done its job then it is up to forensics to do their job and corroborate the findings positively or negatively.
In the Shannon Matthews case the dog alerted so it wasnt a false positive the dog did its job, it was never there to find a specific person.

Yes, it was there to find a specific person - Shannon Matthews. But, of course, cadaver dogs can't find a specific person, that's one of their limitations. That's one of several reasons why a dog alert is merely an investigative tool, and not evidence.

Another one is that they're very susceptible to the bias of their handlers. The link you posted previously on the subject of cadaver dogs describes the bias exhibited by the dog handler towards the McCanns' hire car. How accurate your link was, I don't know, but I certainly remember it describing the dog being brought back to the car again and again before it finally got the message and alerted.

 

[fabgod]

I have to beg to differ, the police brought the dog in to find Shannon matthews but the dogs have no preference on who they look for, they simply alert to the smell they are trained for, the dog smelt cadaver and alerted, that was its complete point of being there and it did it.
Its hard to say whether a handler is leading or not, im not any sort of expert and dont profess to be, I would have thought that the best way to work would be for the dogs to be allowed to just roam in a certain area, but I suppose sometimes in certain circumstances a dog would need to be pointed to a specific area, for example if Investigators were of the thinking that somebody had been killed in a certain area or stored in a certain place, maybe they would suggest areas for the handler to search?

I'm not saying that is what happens as i dont know, but its possible as is being led by a handler, but, the handler wouldnt have much of a reputation for very long if he or she was to work like that

 

[fabgod]

Just to add, why is not being able to search for a specific person one of the dogs limitations?
How would any cadaver dog be able to recognise a persons scent of death if it had never smelt that very scent?
Surely, the dog would have to be given the scent for it to search, which if there was no body, would be totally impossible, not a limitation?

 

[Cappuccino]

Just to add, why is not being able to search for a specific person one of the dogs limitations?
How would any cadaver dog be able to recognise a persons scent of death if it had never smelt that very scent?
Surely, the dog would have to be given the scent for it to search, which if there was no body, would be totally impossible, not a limitation?

Yes, it would be totally impossible, and that is one of the limitations of cadaver dogs. Even if the dog alerts correctly, and the handler doesn't lead, you still can't draw the conclusion that they have alerted to the scent of whichever specific person you're looking for - in this case, Madeliene McCann.

That, and other limitations to their use, are why a dog alert does not hold the status of evidence.

 

[fabgod]

Yes, it would be totally impossible, and that is one of the limitations of cadaver dogs. Even if the dog alerts correctly, and the handler doesn't lead, you still can't draw the conclusion that they have alerted to the scent of whichever specific person you're looking for - in this case, Madeliene McCann.

That, and other limitations to their use, are why a dog alert does not hold the status of evidence.

Yeah Ok

 

[K9Snoop]

Just to add, why is not being able to search for a specific person one of the dogs limitations?
How would any cadaver dog be able to recognise a persons scent of death if it had never smelt that very scent?
Surely, the dog would have to be given the scent for it to search, which if there was no body, would be totally impossible, not a limitation?

The scent of death is considered to be a generic scent with regards to human decomp. A specific person's scent is more relevent with searching for a living human. Most HRD handlers have a "library" of HR materials to train off of because as the material degrades it produces different compounds and by-products and a good handler works their dog on the full spectrum of death. We are constantly on the lookout for new (aka different) stuff to run the dog on.
Most search dogs are taught a word assocation between a specific task and a start command. When I get ready to run my dog on HR detection, it is not necessary to pre-scent him, just tell him "search" and off he goes.

 

[K9Snoop]

That, and other limitations to their use, are why a dog alert does not hold the status of evidence.

Scent is evidence. The dog's alert is an indication that it has located that which its been taught to find. It is up to the detectives and investigators to put that alert into the context of the case.
The question is more of is the dog's alert considered probable cause? In some cases I've work, it was. In others, no. It all depended on the specific case and the detective in charge.

 

[redheadedgal]

... the dog's false positive.

it's not a "false positive" if the dog accurately alerted to cadaver scent-- which apparently the dog used in this case did.

how about giving the dog credit for what he did right instead of turning what he did into something he didn't :twocents:

 

[Cappuccino]

it's not a "false positive" if the dog accurately alerted to cadaver scent-- which apparently the dog used in this case did.

how about giving the dog credit for what he did right instead of turning what he did into something he didn't :twocents:

I'm less interested in the dog than in the missing child. Given that cadaver dog alerts have become part of this case, looking at their limitations is relevant to assessing whether or not Madeliene died in that apartment. As yet, we have nothing other than the cadaver dog alerts to suggest that she did.

 

[brit1981]

looking at the jersey case and the shannon mathews case we can see that a dog alerting does not have to mean someone is dead even if they correctly alert since the dogs are trained to alert to bodily fluids including blood form living humans (unless anyone has evidence grime and harrison are lying through their teeth about that as people are implying by claiming the EVRD only alerts to cadaver), as well as cross contamination (i.e transfer of scent), or an actual cadaver. So unless someone has checked the entire history of the flat and its furniture and has ascertained that none of the furniture has ever been in a house where someone died (it is owned by a british or irish woman and it would not be unusual to use furniture from second hand places like the british heart foundation furniture shops that may have come from house clearences or relatives of someone who died donating their furniture), has ever had a bodily fluid on it, has ever come into contact with someone or something that could transfer these scents, that no-one has ever bled or otherwise left bodily fluids there etc we cannot exclude the possibility that even if the EVRD did alert correctly it actually meant a body had been there. We know that according to the files someone had bled int he flat for 45 mins, we know there had been a surgical assistant living there previously, that police had gone through the place and we know tiny sample of bodily fluids were found there. So unless anyone has actually witnessed a dead body in flat 5A and for some reason refused to go to the police no-one can actually say the dog alerted to a dead body or that a dead body was ever there.
And even if madeleine had died in the flat, why does that implicate her parents and not an intruder?

As for the other places

Hire car: on the vieo eddie never alerts in the hire car. he eventually after being called back several times afte rhe had ignored it barks by the door. he later according to the report alerted to the card fob which wa sin the door. The card fob contained bodily fluid from gerry mccann who so far has not been declared dead.

cuddly toy: No where ont he video does eddie alert to this. he is seen ignoring it after throwing it on the floor. We then see him being repeatedly called back to a cupboard after ignoring ti and eventually he barks whilst standing at the end of the cupboard facing away from it. the video then follows eddie and grime out of the room for a few minutes. When they come back in eddie doe snto alert to the cupboard again, but grime goes to the cupboard, goes straight to the middle section even though eddie never aleted or showed any interest in any particular section and takes out the cat. At no point int he report or video is an explanation given as to when the cat was put in the cupboard, why they knew eddie was alerting to the cat and not anythign else in the cupboard or the cupboard itself, and why despite there being at leats three sections of the cupbaord did grime go straight to the middle one where the cat was despite eddie never alerting to this section. Also even if eddie did alert to the cat we do not know what triggered the alert - tony bit of bodily fluid etc?

clothes: the clothese were packed and unpacked at least a couple fo times by the PJ and were put into a box next to each other and laid on the floor in different places before any alerts were found. We have no idea about the contamination therefore (although it does contradict grime's claim that the scent can transfer as the clothing was packed next to each other), and no idea if eddie was alerting to a bodily fluid or cadaver scent or not.

 

[Clutchbag]

looking at the jersey case and the shannon mathews case we can see that a dog alerting does not have to mean someone is dead even if they correctly alert since the dogs are trained to alert to bodily fluids including blood form living humans (unless anyone has evidence grime and harrison are lying through their teeth about that as people are implying by claiming the EVRD only alerts to cadaver), as well as cross contamination (i.e transfer of scent), or an actual cadaver. So unless someone has checked the entire history of the flat and its furniture and has ascertained that none of the furniture has ever been in a house where someone died (it is owned by a british or irish woman and it would not be unusual to use furniture from second hand places like the british heart foundation furniture shops that may have come from house clearences or relatives of someone who died donating their furniture), has ever had a bodily fluid on it, has ever come into contact with someone or something that could transfer these scents, that no-one has ever bled or otherwise left bodily fluids there etc we cannot exclude the possibility that even if the EVRD did alert correctly it actually meant a body had been there. We know that according to the files someone had bled int he flat for 45 mins, we know there had been a surgical assistant living there previously, that police had gone through the place and we know tiny sample of bodily fluids were found there. So unless anyone has actually witnessed a dead body in flat 5A and for some reason refused to go to the police no-one can actually say the dog alerted to a dead body or that a dead body was ever there.
And even if madeleine had died in the flat, why does that implicate her parents and not an intruder?

As for the other places

Hire car: on the vieo eddie never alerts in the hire car. he eventually after being called back several times afte rhe had ignored it barks by the door. he later according to the report alerted to the card fob which wa sin the door. The card fob contained bodily fluid from gerry mccann who so far has not been declared dead.

cuddly toy: No where ont he video does eddie alert to this. he is seen ignoring it after throwing it on the floor. We then see him being repeatedly called back to a cupboard after ignoring ti and eventually he barks whilst standing at the end of the cupboard facing away from it. the video then follows eddie and grime out of the room for a few minutes. When they come back in eddie doe snto alert to the cupboard again, but grime goes to the cupboard, goes straight to the middle section even though eddie never aleted or showed any interest in any particular section and takes out the cat. At no point int he report or video is an explanation given as to when the cat was put in the cupboard, why they knew eddie was alerting to the cat and not anythign else in the cupboard or the cupboard itself, and why despite there being at leats three sections of the cupbaord did grime go straight to the middle one where the cat was despite eddie never alerting to this section. Also even if eddie did alert to the cat we do not know what triggered the alert - tony bit of bodily fluid etc?

clothes: the clothese were packed and unpacked at least a couple fo times by the PJ and were put into a box next to each other and laid on the floor in different places before any alerts were found. We have no idea about the contamination therefore (although it does contradict grime's claim that the scent can transfer as the clothing was packed next to each other), and no idea if eddie was alerting to a bodily fluid or cadaver scent or not.

yes, there MUST be an innocent explanation for all the alerts, but you dont know that there is unless you are either the parents the friends or the alledged abductor

 

[SapphireSteel]

And even if madeleine had died in the flat, why does that implicate her parents and not an intruder?

.

rsbm

The alerts implicate the parents rather than an intruder because it is already stretching the laws of believability that there was an intruder in the first place, due to the fact that there is zero evidence of one and very little time for all this to be achieved.

According to these people (their accounts differ to this day) the checks were as regular as clockwork and so frequent that none of this actually had time to happen.

We allegedly have an intruder who managed to sneak in to an apartment then sneak back out again undetected, with a little girl in his arms, all while not waking her siblings.

So, now we have not only an extremely accomplished and elusive, yet somehow also extremely stupid abductor (strolling casually down the streets with Madeleine's body, according to Tanner), who has not only silently and expertly abducted a child right in front of her friends and family, despite a complicated regime of checking, now has also managed to kill that child in the process.

How long does it take to kill a child? More than a second or two, surely, no matter how tiny they are. I doubt it is silently achieved either.

We know that there was cadaverine found...how long does cadaverine take to develop? Seconds, or minutes? I'd wager minutes.

So he was in that apartment (undetected) long enough to locate Madeleine and then silently kill her, and traipse her or her cadaverine about the apartment, all while not waking the twins nor being caught by the monitors.

He then left the apartment with a dead child.

If abduction for sexual/trafficking motives was the game, he'd just messed up, badly. Who is going to pay for a dead child? They wouldn't be much use for personal pedophilic purposes, either.

It logically follows that any likely abduction motive is pretty much void if Madeleine died in 5a. So what IS the motive? I wish to kill a child so I can have the experience of burying her somewhere? Or prop her up in my loungeroom so I am never alone, like Norman Bates? Both extremely unlikely.

If these were the motive, it speaks of a mentally ill offender who the PDJ would have found by sunset the next day.

The laws of KISS state

No time to abduct+evidence of a corpse+no time or motive to kill+no motive to abduct a corpse+no evidence of an intruder=there was no intruder.

Yet still Team McCann grind on with their spin, and the media shamefully allow it.

ullhair:

The above is my opinion only as usual.

:cow:

 

[Clutchbag]

Can you provide a link to a primary source that has Gerry claiming this?

provided it in my
Post 334 any comment???

If not whynot? Lol

Could it be because u couldnt believe he lied? If yes looking forward to the spin or otherwise

 

[fabgod]

provided it in my
Post 334 any comment???

If not whynot? Lol

Could it be because u couldnt believe he lied? If yes looking forward to the spin or otherwise

Ouch lol!!!

 

[Clutchbag]

Dogs are in thwir crawand its obvious why

 

[Clutchbag]

I just found out today that little Eddie the cadaver dog passed away a few months ago from cancer

RIP ~~~~~~

Your legacy will be remembered and one day, one day, what you scented around the mccanns will be proven, cant happen soon enough

A fantastic career and closure brought to many families in helping find criminals

 

[Clutchbag]

looking at the jersey case and the shannon mathews case we can see that a dog alerting does not have to mean someone is dead

Most of the time it does though and that is the rub

Childrens teeth and bones were found in Jersey btw, whitewashing this fact is atrocious inthe circumstances

You could do well to watch this video to see how excellent are were the abilities of these two dogs

'Send In The Dogs' - Martin Grime - YouTube

 

[Clutchbag]

provided it in my
Post 334 any comment???

If not whynot? Lol

Could it be because u couldnt believe he lied? If yes looking forward to the spin or otherwise

gone quiet brit?

 

[fabgod]

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/...ng-toddler?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

D'Andre Lane found guilty of murdering Bianca Jones, following the testimony of Martin Grimes and his cadaver dog, Justice has been served in no small part thanks to the work of the Dogs, RIP Bianca.