Capabilities of the Dogs

I've seen this report quoted by many as 'gospel', a 'proof' that Maddie must have been dead for at least an hour and a half.

As the authors point out:

'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.'

To my mind there must be a very big difference in transferal rates between a gauze pad that weighs next to nothing lying on an abdomen, and a nearly four year old child lying on tiles.

Exactly, it would suggest that the exposure time needed for detection, with full contact could be considerably less than an hour and a half, especially as the physiological changes in the body occur immediately upon death.

I posted the link to his as I've seen on many other forums timeline theories based solely on the time it takes to develop cadaverine, as though that was the only scent the dogs could detect.

I know I've posted this link elsewhere, but felt it was worth rrepeating in this topic.

https://worldtracker.org/media/library/Law%20Enforcement/Forensics%20and%20Investigation/Cadaver%20Dog%20Handbook%202000%20(Forensic%20Training%20&%20Tactics%20for%20the%20Recovery%20of%20Human%20Remains)%20By%20Andrew%20Rebmann.pdf

DarkestDawn wrote:Exactly, it would suggest that the exposure time needed for detection,  with full contact could be considerably less than an hour and a half, especially as the physiological changes in the body occur immediately upon death.

I posted the link to his as I've seen on many other forums timeline theories based solely on the time it takes to develop cadaverine, as though that was the only scent the dogs could detect.

Thank you DD, that's very interesting indeed.

Just a reminder.

Not in English but clear to understand.

It's a pity that this early picture represents at least one mistake. Eddie didn't alert at the front door, but in the back, down the "patio" ...

Châtelaine wrote:It's a pity that this early picture represents at least one mistake. Eddie didn't alert at the front door, but in the back, down the "patio" ...

Yeah - your right. It was the flower bed at the back near the patio doors.

Not cadaver dogs, but I did a double-take when turing the pages of my local rag last night.

http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/CSI-Hull-s-latest-recruits-Firedogs-Lexie-Aston/story-25674942-detail/story.html


"I saw a quote that if you had a beach 30m long, 15m wide and 16in deep, the dog can find one grain of sand out of that," says Mike Shooter, who will care for Lexie and will act as her handler."That's the sense of smell of a dog."

"When a dog detects it, it's a 98 per cent hit rate of it being a correct sample. When it isn't correct, it's usually because the scientific equipment isn't sensitive enough to detect the accelerant."


And get those cute protective booties!

I recall that one of Eddie's tests was finding the sand in which a 2,000 year-old mummy had been buried, spread out on a sand beach. He did find it!

Am just reading a thread on CMoMM "What happened to Madeleine McCann?" where there seems to be some confusion as to what Eddie and Keela are trained to respond to.

With regards to Eddie's training it is stated that:

'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. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and still born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF.

This has been interpreted to assume Eddie alerts to cadaverine and human blood.

This is important because, if this is true, it could be interpreted that between the two of them it is possible that Eddie and Keela only detected the scent of human blood during their searches not the presence of a cadaver.

This, I understand,  is the main 'get out' for the McCann supporters with regard to the dogs.

However, my interpretation is that Eddie alerts to cadaverine and bodily fluids including blood from dead bodies only, he cannot detect blood that has come from a live person.

Contrast the description of Keela's training:


'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate exclusively human blood. She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles. In training she has accurately located samples of blood on property up to thirty-six years old.In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

This to me indicates Keela detects blood from both living and dead people, which is why she compliments Eddie. If Eddie alerted to blood from live people and cadaverine, then what would be the point of Keela?

Am I correct in my interpretations?  Because if Eddie alerts to cadaver scent and blood from a living human then that would leave a large hole in the case for death or the presence of death in the apartment. However, he is an Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog, which means he locates dead bodies, so training him to detect 'live' blood would completely undermine his purpose, would it not?

I'm confident I'm reading it correctly, though. It is interesting that these question marks are being raised on Jill's just now, just as things seem to be going well for Goncalo and his theory.... or am I being a paranoid cynic?


(ETA, I have written about Eddie in the present tense, for ease of writing the post to make the point. I know he is with the rest of the true souls in heaven, whatever that blissful place is, bless his heart.)

From the PJ files
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, ect and decomposed cross contaminants. The dog will recognise all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognise the smell of 'fresh blood' They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

Please, does this mean Eddie couldve alerted to dried blood from a nose bleed or a cut knee????

If that were the case then one dog would have been used I would have thought,Eddie alerted to where Keela didn't which indicates to me at least that Eddie alerted to Cadaver.

From the files Keela will only search for and locate exclusively to human blood.The blood must have dried in situ.

caricature wrote:If that were the case then one dog would have been used I would have thought,Eddie alerted to where Keela didn't which indicates to me at least that Eddie alerted to Cadaver.

Phew! Thanks caricature, blood pressure going down again!
So, with Eddie alerting by the wardrobe and garden and Keela not, then I take it Eddie alerted to cadaver odour as there was no alert from Keela?
IMO

Thats how I read it,but I'm no expert.But reading Grimes's report the alert by the wardrobe doesn't mean a body was there just that the air carrying the scent settled there.

caricature wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:

caricature wrote:If that were the case then one dog would have been used I would have thought,Eddie alerted to where Keela didn't which indicates to me at least that Eddie alerted to Cadaver.

Phew! Thanks caricature, blood pressure going down again!
So, with Eddie alerting by the wardrobe and garden and Keela not, then I take it Eddie alerted to cadaver odour as there was no alert from Keela?
IMO

Thats how I read it,but I'm no expert.But reading Grimes's report the alert by the wardrobe doesn't mean a body was there just that the air carrying the scent settled there.

Yep, with Eddie alerting to a place where Keela didn't, hence no blood, then his alert was for cadaver odour (I think!)

The blood inside the body undergoes decomposition on death - micro-organisms start the putrifying process soon after death - this is what cadaver dogs smell.

Blood that has spilled from a live body doesn`t go through the same process, so a cadaver dog won`t detect it - just the blood dog will.

That was my thinking, Mimi. Cadaverine and other bodily fluids (including blood)? from a dead body is what a cadaver dog detects. Keela detects human blood from a live or dead source?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html

This thread on The Maddie Case Files goes into a lot of detail.

However, the specific question as to whether Eddie alerts to blood form a live human is posed and answered as this:

“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver? 

The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for “live” human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of “fresh blood”. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

So now I am confused.

The fact that Keela didn't alert to some places Eddie did would suggest Eddie was scenting death not blood. But without a body how can this be proved? Of course, Eddie referred to as 'the cadaver dog' throughout.

Perhaps this has been the sticking point all along, and why evidence of a body seems essential to closing this case?

Also, the dogs alert differently to cadaver and blood - the dog Keela freezes for one - blood, and the other dog Eddie barks, that is how Martin Grimes knows whether it is blood or cadaver. Different signals for blood and cadaver.


Here is the report where Martin Grime explains....


Moving onto the other rooms once he's found what he thinks he's looking for in this room, and we go into the bathroom and come into this bedroom he loses his interest because he's actually found the source that he was looking for, until we come over here and I think you've got it on video that when he first came in he was quite interested in the sofa but he didn't have access to the back of the sofa and when he's gone behind the sofa what I saw was that approximately in the centre of the wall where the window is, just along the tile area between the tiles and the wall, he's been scenting there a lot stronger than he has anywhere else and the when he's gone out there the second time he has decided yes that's what I'm looking for and that's when he has given me the bark indication.

What we should understand with this dog is that he only barks when he finds something, he won't bark at any other times. He won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or anything like that. The only times I've ever known him bark since I've got him as a small puppy a) for his dinner and that's just excitement and that's one of the training methods we use to teach to bark when we want him to and when he actually finds something, he won't bark at other dogs, he won't bark at strangers, he won't bark when somebody knocks on the door or something like that, so again I would say that's a positive indication.

The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows.

The fact that there is other scientific methods being used may stop you recovering any DNA but if you try we'll see what happens. But she is very, very good and when she indicates there is always blood there.

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

Dee Coy wrote:

The fact that Keela didn't alert to some places Eddie did would suggest Eddie was scenting death not blood. But without a body how can this be proved? Of course, Eddie referred to as 'the cadaver dog' throughout.

Perhaps this has been the sticking point all along, and why evidence of a body seems essential to closing this case?

There have been many cases involving no bodies but convictions including the one where Amaral was accused of torture.

Did I not just read in the interview you published that GA refutes that he was ever accused of torture? Sorry if I misunderstood.

Dee Coy wrote:That was my thinking, Mimi. Cadaverine and other bodily fluids (including blood)? from a dead body is what a cadaver dog detects. Keela detects human blood from a live or dead source?

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic35.html

This thread on The Maddie Case Files goes into a lot of detail.

However, the specific question as to whether Eddie alerts to blood form a live human is posed and answered as this:

“The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver? 

The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for “live” human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of “fresh blood”. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

So now I am confused.

The fact that Keela didn't alert to some places Eddie did would suggest Eddie was scenting death not blood. But without a body how can this be proved? Of course, Eddie referred to as 'the cadaver dog' throughout.

Perhaps this has been the sticking point all along, and why evidence of a body seems essential to closing this case?

Yes, it is confusing - Grime seems to be contradicting himself by not being specific. As Caricature has said, if it is the case that Eddie also detects blood from a live human, why the need for Keela at all. Maybe it is because Keela is able to detect more microscopic samples of blood :-

" 'Keela' The Crime Scene Investigation (C.S.I.) dog will search for and locate human blood to such small proportions that it is unlikely to be recovered by the forensic science procedures in place at this time due to its size or placement.

She will locate contaminated weapons, screen motor vehicles and items of clothing and examine crime scenes for minute human blood deposits. She will accurately locate human blood on items that have been subjected to 'clean up operations' or having been subjected to several washing machine cycles.

In training she has accurately located minute samples of blood on property up to thiry-six years old.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable level for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime."

chirpyinsect wrote:

caricature wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

The fact that Keela didn't alert to some places Eddie did would suggest Eddie was scenting death not blood. But without a body how can this be proved? Of course, Eddie referred to as 'the cadaver dog' throughout.

Perhaps this has been the sticking point all along, and why evidence of a body seems essential to closing this case?

There have been many cases involving no bodies but convictions including the one where Amaral was accused of torture.

Did I not just read in the interview you published that GA refutes that he was ever accused of torture? Sorry if I misunderstood.

He wasn't accused, he was in charge and was accused of something to do with the paperwork iirc,

They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
This is what we need to find out about, please someone help me, if Eddie does this, then what?

candyfloss wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

caricature wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

The fact that Keela didn't alert to some places Eddie did would suggest Eddie was scenting death not blood. But without a body how can this be proved? Of course, Eddie referred to as 'the cadaver dog' throughout.

Perhaps this has been the sticking point all along, and why evidence of a body seems essential to closing this case?

There have been many cases involving no bodies but convictions including the one where Amaral was accused of torture.

Did I not just read in the interview you published that GA refutes that he was ever accused of torture? Sorry if I misunderstood.

He wasn't accused, he was in charge and was accused of something to do with the paperwork iirc,

Yeah sorry about that,he was accused of perjury? but there were accusations of torture in the case.But there was no body if memory serves.Leonor Cipriano case.

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/truth-about-leonor-cipriano-mother-of.html
1 – Joana Cipriano vanished from a small place 10 km in the outskirts of Portimão. Last time somebody saw her, she was on her way to a local groceries shop;
2 - Her mother, Leonor Cipriano, only reported to Police her daughter has disappeared two days after;
3 – After a long and difficult investigation, headed by Chief-Inspector Gonçalo Amaral, Leonor Cipriano and her brother were accused of murdering the eight years old child;
4 – The body of Joana Cipriano was never found, but samples of her blood were found in her mother refrigerator;
5 – Her mother justified those samples of blood admitting she had beaten Joana, for some reason, she was hurt and she blooded from her nose;
6 – Leonor Cipriano and her brother, who had a incestuous relationship, were sentenced to 16 years in jail, for the murder of her daughter and nice;
7 – Before the trial, Leonor Cipriano accused five CID officers of beating her, trying to extract a confession. She named the five CID officers, and included Chief-Inspector Gonçalo ("Amaral Lector", according to British tabloids…);
8 – The Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation and ordered a police line-up, with the CID officers named and accused by Leonor Cipriano of beating her;
9 – The line-up took place with Leonor Cipriano behind a two-way mirror and she couldn’t recognize any of the aggressors;
10 – The Public Prosecutor’s Office magistrate that was in charge of the criminal investigation decided to accuse the five CID officers, but didn’t mentioned, in the accusation sent to the Court, that Leonor Cipriano couldn’t identify any of the aggressors, in the police line-up;
11 – Leonor Cipriano never confessed the murder of her own daughter. Her brother, in a letter written from jail, accused Leonor Cipriano of selling her daughter;
12 – Police is convinced (and the jurors at the trial found enough evidence to pass a verdict of guilty) that Leonor Cipriano and her brother were found, by Joana, having sexual relations, when she came home, back from the groceries shop. As Leonor Cipriano had a lover, at the time, they were afraid she would tell him what she saw;
13 – So, they beat her, in order to frighten her and keep her mouth shut up;
14 – Perhaps accidentally, they beat her so violently that they killed her. So, they decided to get rid of he body and cut it in pieces, keeping some of them in the freezer, while they gave the other pieces to be eaten by pigs (this is what police believes is the strongest possibility, because there was no other trace of Joana Cipriano, unless the blood samples in her mother freezer…)
15 – The body of Joana Cipriano was never found.