Cadaver dog hit on scent in DBs bedroom

[Donjeta]

Moving post from another thread:

There are a lot of different compounds. But the dogs are TRAINED using cadaverine and putrescine, which is only available to certain trainers, under specific conditions. You can't just walk in a store and buy it. (In fact, it is so hard to get that only elite trainers can get it - everyone else has to use synthetic or PIG scent. Seriously. And those dogs are going to have many more false hits.)

So this scent is what the dogs learn on. They obviously can't smell a real cadaver - so they use these substances, because they are present in EVERY cadaver. But the same stuff is also in other body fluids. And that's the problem here.

I am no expert in how the dogs are trained but I think there are other things present in various bodily fluids and other remains that the dogs can distinguish between. I also think that vomit, semen, urine, feces are not that hard to get so that IMO they should be readily available for practice so that the dog can be trained not to hit on those. Unavailability of those substances is not an excuse not to do so if you want your dog to be useful in searching houses that may once have had cadavers in them.

As I said - normally a dog is running around, looking for a body. If it smells urine, the handler sees that there is no body there, and they move along. It's not even really considered a "hit" usually (so that the hit/miss ratio stays high). They don't really care about the smell - they are looking for the body.

If the presence or absence of a body is readily visible why do they even need the dog?

In THIS case, LE wanted that hit. They either wanted it as a clue (something to say woah - there COULD have been a body here) or they wanted it to get probable cause to get the search warrant. But I m pretty sure that very few LE really think that a dead body was laid down in that spot. If they had thought that, they would have ripped up the carpet and the floor, and probably half the wall too - and taken it as evidence.

Anyway, if we are going to discuss the dogs anymore we should probably move to the Cadaver thread

My point is that if a dog alerts on urine, feces, semen etc. a hit does not constitute a clue. It does not constitute probable cause. It just means that there's been urine, feces, semen etc. at the scene, and none of that is illegal and most of it it's not even unexpected in a house with sexually active individuals and children in diapers.

I don't have the slightest clue why any judge would see the possible presence of semen in a bedroom of sexually active adults as probable cause to allow them to get a search warrant.

(For that matter, I don't understand why the disappearance of a baby from that house wasn't enough for one.)

 

[Oriah]

*sigh*

Peeps, you can train a dog (not all dogs, mind you- but dogs nonetheless) to alert on human feces. To alert on urine. To alert on semen. To alert on hot dogs. To alert on peanuts. To alert on toothpaste. To alert on kerosene. To alert on gasoline. To alert on diesel. To alert on explosives. To alert on human decomp. To alert on human cellular changes. To alert on environmental changes. To alert on body chemistry changes. Is everyone understanding the sky is the limit?

It is a science and an art. It is all about what they are trained to NOT alert on.

And that's all I'm gonna say right now!

 

[matou]

Oriah: :heartbeat::heartbeat::heartbeat:

 

[Oriah]

Oriah: :heartbeat::heartbeat::heartbeat:

Back atcha, matou.

 

[Karmaa]

I can't reproduce this article because of copyright laws, but I am citing it below. If you can get a hold of it, it explains the most current information on VOC's (volatile organic compounds) including how they are formed, how dogs use them to track (this is mostly about dogs being able to smell disease, but they do go into tracking in general). This is written by scientists from the Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences at The University of Tokyo, and published by the Oxford University, and is then peer-reviewed. (In other words, it's not just some random web site).

This is just ONE article I used to learn about cadaver dogs. I know a few other posters have also looked stuff up in their university libraries, and they have found similar information.

I am not trying to say that out experts are wrong - I just think that there are mixed messages. Dogs are capable of some amazing stuff, but they are not infallible. And it's not just because of the trainer/handler (although a good trainer is absolutely necessary), there are limitations to what dogs can do. And a dog simply can NOT tell the difference between cadaverine that comes from a dead body and cadaverine that comes from urine. It is not possible.

Dogs may NOT hit on areas where a dead body was, and they may hit on places where no dead body ever was. It happens. It doesn't mean that dogs are useless or fakes. There is a lot of documentation that proves that dogs are indeed excellent trackers. (Wasps are too - who knew?). As I said before, I would totally want track dogs called in if I was searching for someone. But they make mistakes.

Take it for what it's worth. I am tired of beating my head against the wall. And this is just one of the articles. I have about 15 more. It's an interesting subject, you might want to research it.

Shirasu, M., & Touhara, K. (2011). The scent of disease: volatile organic compounds of the human body related to disease and disorder. Journal Of Biochemistry, 150(3), 257-266


ETA: I should say, a dog COULD probably be trained to NOT hit on the additional compounds present in every other substance that could possibly have cadaverine compounds in it. So, possibly, a dog could be trained to HIT on cadaverine, except when the odor of urine is also present, for example. But that seems like a bad idea. In many deaths, the victim vomits or urinates at or immediately before death.

 

[DeAnn]

For those who believe Jersey snatched Lisa from her crib for whatever reason.......what is the explanation for the cadaver dog hit especially in DB's bedroom?

 

[Oriah]

I can't reproduce this article because of copyright laws, but I am citing it below. If you can get a hold of it, it explains the most current information on VOC's (volatile organic compounds) including how they are formed, how dogs use them to track (this is mostly about dogs being able to smell disease, but they do go into tracking in general). This is written by scientists from the Department of Applied Biological Chemistry, Graduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences at The University of Tokyo, and published by the Oxford University, and is then peer-reviewed. (In other words, it's not just some random web site).

This is just ONE article I used to learn about cadaver dogs. I know a few other posters have also looked stuff up in their university libraries, and they have found similar information.

I am not trying to say that out experts are wrong - I just think that there are mixed messages. Dogs are capable of some amazing stuff, but they are not infallible. And it's not just because of the trainer/handler (although a good trainer is absolutely necessary), there are limitations to what dogs can do. And a dog simply can NOT tell the difference between cadaverine that comes from a dead body and cadaverine that comes from urine. It is not possible.

Dogs may NOT hit on areas where a dead body was, and they may hit on places where no dead body ever was. It happens. It doesn't mean that dogs are useless or fakes. There is a lot of documentation that proves that dogs are indeed excellent trackers. (Wasps are too - who knew?). As I said before, I would totally want track dogs called in if I was searching for someone. But they make mistakes.

Take it for what it's worth. I am tired of beating my head against the wall. And this is just one of the articles. I have about 15 more. It's an interesting subject, you might want to research it.

Shirasu, M., & Touhara, K. (2011). The scent of disease: volatile organic compounds of the human body related to disease and disorder. Journal Of Biochemistry, 150(3), 257-266


ETA: I should say, a dog COULD probably be trained to NOT hit on the additional compounds present in every other substance that could possibly have cadaverine compounds in it. So, possibly, a dog could be trained to HIT on cadaverine, except when the odor of urine is also present, for example. But that seems like a bad idea. In many deaths, the victim vomits or urinates at or immediately before death.

This science is what dog trainers and handlers use to TEACH scent discrimination to working dogs.

ALL science is falliable in its limitations and expectations.

DNA is only as good as the sample presented, to the geneticist who analyzes it, with the tools they have available to analyze.

The same is true for working dogs and scent discrimination.

I. Give. Up.

 

[Donjeta]

For those who believe Jersey snatched Lisa from her crib for whatever reason.......what is the explanation for the cadaver dog hit especially in DB's bedroom?

They brought in a useless dog that they knew alerts on urine vomit and semen just to frame the parents.

 

[DeAnn]

They brought in a useless dog that they knew alerts on urine vomit and semen just to frame the parents.

And then the next set of dogs was also the same? And if they wanted to frame the parents, why haven't they been arrested? And that it was a useless dog wouldn't come out in discovery?

 

[Donjeta]

And then the next set of dogs was also the same? And if they wanted to frame the parents, why haven't they been arrested? And that it was a useless dog wouldn't come out in discovery?

Do we have information about which results different dogs came up with?

All cadaver dogs are useless, according to some posts in this thread because apparently science says that they can't tell the difference between a cadaver and pee which means that it means absolutely nada unless someone finds a body digging at that spot.

Then again, some posts say that the dogs can be amazing.

JMO but I can tell the difference between the smell of rotting flesh and the smell of urine, it's hard for me to understand why a dog couldn't be taught to discriminate them.

 

[JohnBull]

This science is what dog trainers and handlers use to TEACH scent discrimination to working dogs.

ALL science is falliable in its limitations and expectations.

DNA is only as good as the sample presented, to the geneticist who analyzes it, with the tools they have available to analyze.

The same is true for working dogs and scent discrimination.

I. Give. Up.

Don't give up, but I would like to know whether the cadaver dogs are infallible, and if not, why they fail, and what percentages we're looking at in terms of failure rates.

 

[DeAnn]

Do we have information about which results different dogs came up with?

All cadaver dogs are useless, according to some posts in this thread because apparently science says that they can't tell the difference between a cadaver and a non-cadaver which means that it means absolutely nada unless someone finds a body digging at that spot.

All I know is cadaver dogs apparently are being quite helpful in the attempts to find a missing Missouri Highway Patrol trooper swept away by floodwaters and cadaver dogs are helping in the search for the assumed remains of Katie Seefeldt. Those are two high profile cases right now in which cadaver dogs in the KC/western Mo. area are assumed to be helpful but no bodies or remains have been found yet.

 

[Oriah]

Don't give up, but I would like to know whether the cadaver dogs are infallible, and if not, why they fail, and what percentages we're looking at in terms of failure rates.

JohnBull, this is not directed at you at all- just a reflection of how I am feeling right now, which is extremely frustrated.

HRD dogs are not infalliable- nor do I think any verified SAR, K9 or LEO has ever said on this board.

If someone knows of an investigative technique or science that IS infalliable, I would love to hear more about that.

Failure rates depend almost entirely on training, ability, education- the resources available to them- and an understanding that failure is a component of success.
I could tell you our stats- and I could start sourcing others stats. But I have the very distinct feeling that it will not matter one way or the other to the general population.
Until, of course, someone they love goes missing or dies- and a dog points out where they are, or where it happened.

I probably need a self imposed time out. This is very frustrating for me.

 

[MissJames]

They brought in a useless dog that they knew alerts on urine vomit and semen just to frame the parents.

:giggle:

 

[MissJames]

JohnBull, this is not directed at you at all- just a reflection of how I am feeling right now, which is extremely frustrated.

HRD dogs are not infalliable- nor do I think any verified SAR, K9 or LEO has ever said on this board.

If someone knows of an investigative technique or science that IS infalliable, I would love to hear more about that.

Failure rates depend almost entirely on training, ability, education- the resources available to them- and an understanding that failure is a component of success.
I could tell you our stats- and I could start sourcing others stats. But I have the very distinct feeling that it will not matter one way or the other to the general population.
Until, of course, someone they love goes missing or dies- and a dog points out where they are, or where it happened.

I probably need a self imposed time out. This is very frustrating for me.

IIRC in the Anthony case ,after a cadaver dog hit on some spots in the Anthony's back yard,a second cadaver dog was brought in as a control of sorts ,to see if it also hit those spots.
So even the LE handlers understand the dogs are a tool and will get a "second opinion",if the situation requires it.
My son's service dog is scent specific to our son and we really do depend on him,but we also know to call 911 and not just depend on him. It's really not our dog that makes mistakes when tracking,it's us and the way we read him.:crazy:I'm sure the dog could track directly to our child if I let go of the lead,but then I would have to find both of them!
JMO

 

[sarx]

Wow, what is there a full moon or something? Take a breather Oriah, you've had one heck of a day on here.

 

[JohnBull]

HRD dogs are not infalliable- nor do I think any verified SAR, K9 or LEO has ever said on this board.

I believe you're right about that. I don't recall reading any such thing on this board.

My take on the dogs is that they're a valuable investigative tool and in some instances their findings might be good as evidence, particularly when buttressed by other evidence. What is jury work, after all? Simply a subjective means of applying statistical analysis to evidence. The Casey Anthony trial comes to mind, and that's one where I think the dog work might very well have resulted in a conviction, because it was given in conjunction with quite a bit of convincing circumstantial evidence, not least of which was the fact that several witnesses independently testified as to a strong odor of decomposition coming from the trunk of the defendant's car.

 

[JohnBull]

Sarx, I don't know if you're aware of it, but your user name is a very clever play on the Greek word sarx, which means "body." Very witty!

 

[RANCH]

JohnBull, this is not directed at you at all- just a reflection of how I am feeling right now, which is extremely frustrated.

HRD dogs are not infalliable- nor do I think any verified SAR, K9 or LEO has ever said on this board.

If someone knows of an investigative technique or science that IS infalliable, I would love to hear more about that.

Failure rates depend almost entirely on training, ability, education- the resources available to them- and an understanding that failure is a component of success.
I could tell you our stats- and I could start sourcing others stats. But I have the very distinct feeling that it will not matter one way or the other to the general population.
Until, of course, someone they love goes missing or dies- and a dog points out where they are, or where it happened.

I probably need a self imposed time out. This is very frustrating for me.

I want to thank Oriah and Sarx for helping me understand how HRD dogs work.

The part of the quote that I bolded above tells me that without knowing the training etc. of the dog that did the search in the bedroom, it's hard to draw any conclusions from this "hit".

We would hope that that LE would use the most qualified dog for their purpose to do the search. At this point we just don't know anything about the dog that was used.

So I can't give a lot of weight to the HRD dog hit until I see more information about this dog. JMO.

 

[AngelWings444]

Wow, what is there a full moon or something? Take a breather Oriah, you've had one heck of a day on here.

And it keeps on going. :great:

Sarx and Oriah, thank you for all you do in "trying" to make us all understand. It's a thankless job. :floorlaugh: