Author Topic: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?  (Read 355077 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline gilet

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #165 on: March 27, 2014, 07:11:07 PM »
So you are saying that the alert definitely indicates cadaver scent

That was the implication in Serendipity's post yesterday which I challenged. Since then, as John has pointed out, Serendipity has changed that categorical position and inserted the phrase which Martin Grime used  (and which I outlined at length in my criticism of Serendipity's original post) "suggestive of".

Apparently it was wrong of me to be critical of the misleading claim though.


Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #166 on: March 27, 2014, 07:13:17 PM »
"What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times." (Martin Grime)
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Lace

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #167 on: March 28, 2014, 09:24:08 AM »
Two questions for Serendipity.

1.    Why didn't Eddie alert to Cuddle Cat when he found it?

2.    Why did Eddie when searching through the clothes in the Warehouse  pick the items up in his mouth when this
       is not usual for a Cadaver dog to do as it contaminates the evidence.

Thank you.

Offline Admin

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #168 on: March 28, 2014, 09:58:49 AM »
Note by Admin

A new thread was started by gilet yesterday which asked the question as to who was paid for the deployment of the dogs in Portugal.  After a couple of posts this thread descended into chaos with several other issues being introduced ad hoc and completely out of context.  A slanging match soon ensued which served no purpose whatsoever. The thread was later suspended and has since been deleted. 

This forum is not a platform for facilitating potentially libellous attacks on anyone.  This sort of conduct will not be tolerated.

Admin   ?>)()<

Offline John

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #169 on: March 28, 2014, 11:13:55 AM »
CADAVER SCENT PROJECT

by Adela Morris and Rita Martinez (CSST members)

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.

We want to begin to learn, understand, and document the minimum post mortem time interval for which our dogs can perceive the difference between live and dead scent. Our window into the vivid realm of canine olfaction is, obviously, the dog's body language and more precisely, the alert sequence. The dog uses the alert to intentionally communicate to us "I have found a smell that you want". We want to know the minimum interval at which our dogs can classify a scent as dead, as opposed to live, and when that classification is distinct enough that the dog is moved to perform the trained alert.

ICF RESERCH PAPER #97-1-1: POST- MORTEM INTERVAL FOR WHICH TRAINED K9s DIFFERENTIATE LIVE HUMAN SCENT vs DECOMP SCENT

*All post-mortem scent samples consist of sterile gauze pads, (sealed until just prior to use) placed on abdominal area of decedent for exactly 20 minutes. Gauze pads are then placed in unused plastic bags and double sealed with packing tape. All post-mortem scent samples are handled with latex gloves, and at no time do these samples come in skin contact with live human scent.
 *All Live Human scent samples are placed on the abdominal area of a living person for exactly 20 minutes, then placed in unused plastic bags and double sealed in the same manner as the post-mortem samples.

All trials are conducted using a lineup method:
 Each consists of a line of three gauze pads - one exposed to post-mortem scent, one exposed to live human scent, and one sterile unused pad opened with gloved hands just prior to each trial.
 All trials are done on a hard surface, either asphalt, cement, or hard packed dry dirt ground.
 Each dog is given the "cadaver" command by its handler and walked through the lineup. The dog is then asked to choose and indicate to the handler which gauze contains post-mortem scent.
 Every trial was "blind" to each handler working it, that is the handler had no prior knowledge of lineup sequence.
 Dogs are given only a single choice per trial.
 Choices are recorded as CORRECT or INCORRECT only.
 Any dog that appeared unwilling to commit to a single sample was removed from that trial and the choice was recorded as Incorrect.
 All samples are properly disposed of after each trial.

TRIALS BEGUN: January 1997
 NUMBER OF DOGS USED: Five different dogs
 POST-MORTEM INTERVAL RANGE: From 70 minutes to 3 days
 NUMBER OF TRIALS COMPLETED: As of July 1997, total of 52 trials completed
 PRELIMINARY RESULTS: The shortest post-mortem interval for which we received a correct response was one hour and 25 minutes. However, the post-mortem interval for which we received a consistently correct response from all dogs involved is 2.5 - 3 hours.



NOTES:

We emphasize our inability to control all variables during our project. It has been impossible for us to obtain scent samples and carry out the trials under strictly controlled conditions. We had no control over the environmental conditions under which our samples were gathered, manner and cause of death, nor could we exercise tight regulation over the quantity of samples of any one given time interval. Since there are periods in which our samples are few and far between, this project has no set deadline and will be ongoing for a time. Our intention is not to offer an absolute answer to the questions posed, but to initiate an ongoing dialogue and offer what we hope is a point of departure for other exciting research projects. This will shed light on the under-navigated and sometimes mysterious arena of canine olfaction applied to body recovery.

It is important to note what the dogs are not being asked to do, as well as what they are being asked to do. They are not choosing from a lineup of actual human tissue, but only from gauze pads for which great care has been taken to expose them only to dry skin regions, not to any blood or perceivable body fluids. Also note that the exposure time is exactly 20 minutes.

In addition, there are many obvious variables not addressed by this project. It will be exciting to undertake future studies that deal with such factors as difficulty of detection according to age, sex, and race of decedent and manner and cause of death.

Comments, suggestions and questions regarding this project are welcome.


www.csst.org/
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 11:18:44 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carana

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #170 on: March 28, 2014, 11:32:23 AM »
I was told of an interesting experiment yesterday in order to test at what stage after death a properly trained dog can detect the scent of death or cadaverine.

In order to accomplish this, gauzes were left in contact with a newly deceased body at varying intervals starting at 70 mins, 85 mins etc...

Scent dogs were then introduced in an attempt to alert to the contaminated gauzes.  Conclusion was that they didn't alert to the 70 min gauze but did to the following ones commencing 1hr 25 mins.

Thus why a period of approximately 1½ hrs must elapse before a victim recovery dog will alert to a newly deceased cadaver.  Inevitably, this period of time will shorten with increased temperature.

Which experiment? Could you provide a link, please John.

Is it the Oesterhelweg one? If so, it's been posted on here many times.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 11:34:37 AM by Carana »

Offline John

A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Carana

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #172 on: March 28, 2014, 11:52:42 AM »
See previous post.

www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3694.msg141174#msg141174

Thanks. That dates back to 1997. It has already been posted here several times as well.  They openly acknowledge that it was an experiment that didn't control variables.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #173 on: March 28, 2014, 12:25:11 PM »
"What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times." (Martin Grime)

"I want my toy back" (cuddle-cat) was another time ...

Offline Serendipity

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #174 on: March 28, 2014, 12:31:59 PM »
Thanks. That dates back to 1997. It has already been posted here several times as well.  They openly acknowledge that it was an experiment that didn't control variables.

Have a listen to this conversation with Dean Beers which is specifically discussing the case of missing baby Lisa Irwin in 2011 in which he explains the average time for a cadaver dog  hit is about 3 hours but that timescale can be reduced based factors such as environment temp and body size, so a hit on a child would be much sooner.

http://rmriinc.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/dean_beers_conversation.mp3

Particularly interesting around 14 mins in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Lisa_Irwin


« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 12:34:56 PM by Serendipity »

Estuarine

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #175 on: March 28, 2014, 12:51:46 PM »
Given that until such time as one of the investigative bodies generates a revised thesis the ruling document is the PJ Archiving Report. It may be an opportune moment to look again at what this document said:
D – Dog searches and constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos
 
In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine's whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.
 
Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).
 
From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:
 
1 – The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
2 – That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
3 – Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
4 – In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);
 
5 – In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);
 
6 – This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault – 59-DA-27 – that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
7 – Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
8 – The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);
 
9 – After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
 
10 – It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);
 
11 – It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
12 – Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);
 
13 – This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.
 
The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.
 
These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.
 
Martin Grime, the dogs' instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: "Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations"; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler's word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.
 
In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII – FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).
 
It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between Madeleine's DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)



I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conducted quite extensive research with E.V.R.D in late 1990s. It might be worth looking at by those who are interested.
After all what are we trying to cast doubt on here? The principle of the technology (for want of a better expression) or two operators and two dogs. A much wider net needs to be cast to include all works ever carried out in this field if it is to be convincingly demonstrated that the "technology" is suspect. If it is two men and two dogs the motive is laid bare and all the chat is meaningless.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #176 on: March 28, 2014, 12:57:16 PM »
The PJ reached a conclusion that Madeleine had been murdered and invited Mark Harrison to explore that hypothesis.

I think we already know that.

Offline jassi

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #177 on: March 28, 2014, 12:59:15 PM »
The PJ reached a conclusion that Madeleine had been murdered and invited Mark Harrison to explore that hypothesis.

I think we already know that.

Did they actually specify murder, or is that something that death has morphed into with time ?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #178 on: March 28, 2014, 01:02:33 PM »
Did they actually specify murder, or is that something that death has morphed into with time ?

They specified murder.

Harrison offered to explore other possibilities on request.

Either Harrison was never asked or, if he was, and did explore other possibilities, we don't read that report on-line.

This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.


                                                                                  Mark Harrison
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 01:04:47 PM by ferryman »

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Are Victim Detection and Forensic Evidence Search Dogs reliable?
« Reply #179 on: March 28, 2014, 01:10:27 PM »
"I want my toy back" (cuddle-cat) was another time ...

A second test was done on the toy hidden in the sideboard to confirm if it had cadaver scent. Eddie barked so there's your answer.

Kate also kept it close to her alerted pants.

« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 01:13:13 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.