the cadaver dog

[brit1981]

The gases and decomposition in a deceased body are different to the gases and decomposition from a live body.

That is just not true, and the quotes you have put up do not claim this either. You have misunderstood the scientific principle behind it. I mean earlier it came acroos like you thought the stomach was needed to decomposure to create amino acids and that respiratory gases were only found in the entire body!!!!!

And the dog used is a EVRD not a cadaver dog, and he alerts to blood and other bodily fluids. Grimes states this in his own report. Bodily fluids were found in the places he alerted so no-one can say for certain that eddie was alerting to cadaver scent and not the bodily fluids.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The gases and decomposition in a deceased body are different to the gases and decomposition from a live body.

That is just not true, and the quotes you have put up do not claim this either. You have misunderstood the scientific principle behind it. I mean earlier it came acroos like you thought the stomach was needed to decomposure to create amino acids and that respiratory gases were only found in the entire body!!!!!

They are...at least the chemical evidence of respiratory gases are. What is so difficult to understand about that?

And the dog used is a EVRD not a cadaver dog, and he alerts to blood and other bodily fluids. Grimes states this in his own report. Bodily fluids were found in the places he alerted so no-one can say for certain that eddie was alerting to cadaver scent and not the bodily fluids.

Cadaver = corpse.

:banghead:

 

[K9Snoop]

IThis is why dog trainers do not accept live body part donations from people who have had surgical amputations. The body parts do not come from a deceased donor therefore cannot be used as cadaver.

There is not a single cadaver/HRD dog trainer of my acquaintance (in the U.S. or Europe) that would refuse a live body part donation.

In the States when dog people disagree about something we let the dogs decide it. If you send me a valid postal address, I will mail you some scent pads. Some will be generated off of dead body amputations and some will be generated off of live body amputations. Run your dog on them and you tell me which ones are from dead bodies and which from live ones. If your dog alerts on all of them, well, then you will have your answer. If your dog correctly indicates the difference than I will post an apology to you and the thread.

"The bull*hit stops when the tailgate drops."

 

[brit1981]

They are...at least the chemical evidence of respiratory gases are. What is so difficult to understand about that?

That is not true. the entire body needs the respiratory gases. they get pumped around in the blood. That is why if someone has poor circulation due to complicatiosn in diabetes for instance that part of the body dies and has to be amputated. Every tissue in the body needs oxygen to survive. Just as every protein the body is made up of amino acids and as part of the degradation these will break down into their constituant parts which are amino acids. the quotes you have posted do not contradict this. You have just posted a basic description of decomposition, but it does not differ if the donor was alive or dead.

 

[badhorsie]

For information

Martin Grimes Report

Martin Grimes
CARTAS ROGATORIAS 3 Pages 21 to 25

Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso Nacional Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases?
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case?
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal?
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog?
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver?
OR
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred?
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

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

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids?
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
Platelets
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion?
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected?
Cross-contamination is immediate.

How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog?
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odor, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human?
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results?
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case?
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.

 

[badhorsie]

The gases and decomposition in a deceased body are different to the gases and decomposition from a live body.

That is just not true, and the quotes you have put up do not claim this either. You have misunderstood the scientific principle behind it. I mean earlier it came acroos like you thought the stomach was needed to decomposure to create amino acids and that respiratory gases were only found in the entire body!!!!!

And the dog used is a EVRD not a cadaver dog, and he alerts to blood and other bodily fluids. Grimes states this in his own report. Bodily fluids were found in the places he alerted so no-one can say for certain that eddie was alerting to cadaver scent and not the bodily fluids.

Where does Grimes say this please?

 

[brit1981]

Where does Grimes say this please?

'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.

Found about three quarters of the way down the report under EVRD (eddie was the EVRD and Keela the CSI). (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)

In your quote below he also states

"The EVRD dog 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.[/I]


So without other evidence it is not possible to tell if Eddie was alerting to a bodily fluid from a living person that has started to break down, or the scent of a corpse. I presume that is why Grimes makes a point of saying one needs evidence to back up the dogs alerts, and cannot use the as evidence alone.

 

[badhorsie]

"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 there was dried blood in the carboot, on KMc's clothing, in the accommodation used by the MC's, fair enough but why did he not alert anywhere else? Only to the McCann's possessions and accommodations?
If dried blood is commonly found why was there none anywhere else?

 

[brit1981]

Who knows. But blood was found in the flat I think. I believe two people who had stayed there after the mccanns and before the searches said they had bled in there. One man said he had a shaving cut that bled for nearly an hour, and a woman said her daughter tripped and cut herself, and needed stiches. Both of these would have resulted in a lot of blood, so perhaps the other flats they looked in (only three I think) had not had two accidents like these in them, whereas flat 5A had had two accidents resulting in a lot fo blood loss in just a few weeks. And there is no reason to think these people would lie for the mccanns they never met them.

Also the card fobb was found to have a bodily fluid on it, that was most likely Gerry's and both dogs alerted to this when it was taken out of the car, so there is no reason to think he did not get a small cut and get his blood on the fobb.

As for not alerting in other places. Well as well as the possible scenario above, where the other flats did not have two people cutting themselves in and bleeding a lot in the weeks before the search, it is also possible that if every flat had been searched more alerts woudl have occurred. They did after all only search three or four flats in total, hardly representative. I also wonder why they did not just search the other flats whilst they had the dogs there. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone staying at the complex took madeleine. If someone wanted to snatch a child what better place that a family holiday resort, where hundreds of strangers come and go all the time. Lets face it, the media were all over Kate and Gerry, who noticed the other guests that much. Who would have thought it odd to see a guest leaving with a bag at the end of their holiday?
I am not saying that is what happened but it was surely worth looking in the flats, just in case.

The dog also alerts to bodily fluids other than blood according to Grimes.

Just realised a sad thing, Eddie was seven in 2007, so will be twelve now. I think that is the average life expectancy for spaniels (at least some types). Poor little guy, i hope he beats that, he is so cute.

 

[brit1981]

made slight error. These peopel stayed just before th mccanns stayed at 5A

Witness statement of Paul Anthony Gordon

We stayed in the same apartment that the McCanns would later stay in, apartment 5ª of the Ocean Club. We travelled to Faro on 21st April 2007.

I cut myself whilst shaving in the bathroom. The cut bled for about 45 minutes. As far as I know, nobody else cut themselves in the apartment.

Claire Louise Fawkes

At Easter my family had two weeks holiday. I do not remember the exact date we travelled but I know it was a Saturday after Easter. We travelled to the OC, P da L in the Algarve in Portugal.

On the Wednesday or Thursday of the second week of our holiday I received a phone call from a MW employee saying that R*** had fallen in the crèche and had cut her chin. When I arrived at the club she had almost stopped bleeding, but even so and through precaution we took her to a doctor in P da L, who put in some stitches. I do not remember if she bled again after this or whether she did in the apartment, but it is a possibility.

So we have one person bleeding for forty-five minuets (that is quite a shaving cut), and another person who had had a recent cut, that required stitches. So the girl with the stiches may not have bled, but it is not unlikely she did, or dried blood fell there. Oddly even though keela is supposed to alert to microscopic amounts of blood, even historic blood she did not alert int he bathroom of 5A, which I would assume is where the shaving cut started.
This is something I find odd about the dogs, they are meant to be so accurate they will alert to microscopic amounts of historic blood (and in Eddie's case bodily fluids). If that was the case surely they would alert everywhere, most homes will have had someone bleed at least a tiny amount at some point over a period of years. K9 can you help with this?

Also interesting to note is the fact that one of the people who stayed in the flat shortly before the mccanns was a surgical assistant (June Hughs) and states "I remember that the key to the apartment was a bit unusual. It was round and with cut segments. We noticed that the cleaning personnel knocked on the door once and would then enter in the apartment. In this sequence, we left the door always closed with the key in the lock. The next morning, the cleaning woman knocked on the door and entered normally independent of the door being locked with the key inthe interior of the lock."
her partner states
We noticed that the cleaning personnel entered the apartment after one knock and did not give us time to respond. This was a bit bothersome and for this reason we would lock the door, and would leave the key in the inside lock.

After this precaution, the next day, the same thing happened and the cleaning woman entered even though the door was locked with the key in the lock.

We never found out how it was possible for a cleaning woman to enter after we had tried to prevent it.

How the hell did the cleaner manage to get in if the door was locked and the key in the lock? Makes me wonder if the locks actually worked properly.

I also wonder why the police after keela and Eddie alerted, did not do a luminol test. This would have shown up any blood that had been cleaned away and would have given a better indication of how much was there, and what sort of patten it was distributed in (i.e drops from a cut would differ from a major head injury where the blood seeped from a wound as the victim was lying there).

 

[K9Snoop]

So we have one person bleeding for forty-five minuets (that is quite a shaving cut), and another person who had had a recent cut, that required stitches. So the girl with the stiches may not have bled, but it is not unlikely she did, or dried blood fell there. Oddly even though keela is supposed to alert to microscopic amounts of blood, even historic blood she did not alert int he bathroom of 5A, which I would assume is where the shaving cut started.
This is something I find odd about the dogs, they are meant to be so accurate they will alert to microscopic amounts of historic blood (and in Eddie's case bodily fluids). If that was the case surely they would alert everywhere, most homes will have had someone bleed at least a tiny amount at some point over a period of years. K9 can you help with this?

I also wonder why the police after keela and Eddie alerted, did not do a luminol test. This would have shown up any blood that had been cleaned away and would have given a better indication of how much was there, and what sort of patten it was distributed in (i.e drops from a cut would differ from a major head injury where the blood seeped from a wound as the victim was lying there).

The apartment video I watched (Brit, maybe you could post the link again as I’m not on my home system) did not show Keela searching those areas. Eddie did the initial search and then Keela was brought in to check only in the areas where Eddie alerted at. The video does not show Keela searching any place else in the apartment other than (if I remember correctly) a wicker chair. So as far as I know, Keela never searched the bathroom.

I also wondered on the Luminal but that may have been done as a routine part of the general forensic investigation.

 

[brit1981]

When you say keela did nto search the bathroom, do you mean that they never took the dog there or the dog was not interested so she never went in. It just seems odd to me that they would not check the bathroom (fairly obvious place for a child to slip and fall whilst unattended).
I was certain the found tiny amounts of material they thought was blood on the tiles. I will have to go back and look at the files again (will also try to find links to videos).

I do not think they did do a luminol test at all. i do remember hearing the forensic examination there was not very good, but no idea if that is true. But there is no mention of luminol in any of the files, or any media I have read. It woud seem to have been an obvious thing to do.

 

[K9Snoop]

When you say keela did nto search the bathroom, do you mean that they never took the dog there or the dog was not interested so she never went in. It just seems odd to me that they would not check the bathroom (fairly obvious place for a child to slip and fall whilst unattended).
I was certain the found tiny amounts of material they thought was blood on the tiles. I will have to go back and look at the files again (will also try to find links to videos).

I do not think they did do a luminol test at all. i do remember hearing the forensic examination there was not very good, but no idea if that is true. But there is no mention of luminol in any of the files, or any media I have read. It woud seem to have been an obvious thing to do.

On the video I saw, they did not take the dog there at all. What I saw was a specific, directed search into two areas and only those two areas. There was no bathroom included. From what I saw they did not let Keela do a free search like they did with Eddie. They let eddie do the free search and then brought in keela and did a directed search only in the areas that were specifically indicated on by eddie.

 

[badhorsie]

Grimes testifying at Bianca Jones Case

Two forensic canine experts testified Friday before Evans ruled to admit at trial the potential evidence, which is key for prosecutors in the case against Lane.

Danian Woodson, an attorney for Lane, tried to argue against the cadaver dog evidence. But Evans cut her off and denied the motion.

After the hearing, Woodson said the alleged evidence is "not admissible, not relevant, highly prejudicial and should be excluded."

Lane has claimed Bianca was in the back seat of his 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis on the morning of Dec. 2 when he was approached by armed carjackers near Brush Street and Grand River.

The vehicle was found shortly after, but the child was not inside. Her body has not been found.

Forensic canine expert Martin Grime testified Friday and at Lane's prior preliminary examination that he brought in his victim recovery dog, Morse, two days after the girl went missing. He said the dog detected a cadaver scent inside Lane's car, on the child's blanket and car seat, and in the girl's bedroom and Lane's home.

Grime said the dogs detect only the generic scent of human decomposition. The dogs, he said, cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.

Grime testified in court Friday that Morse has never had a false positive response, and that testing done just prior and after the dog worked in the Jones case was successful.

 

[fabgod]

Grimes testifying at Bianca Jones Case

Two forensic canine experts testified Friday before Evans ruled to admit at trial the potential evidence, which is key for prosecutors in the case against Lane.

Danian Woodson, an attorney for Lane, tried to argue against the cadaver dog evidence. But Evans cut her off and denied the motion.

After the hearing, Woodson said the alleged evidence is "not admissible, not relevant, highly prejudicial and should be excluded."

Lane has claimed Bianca was in the back seat of his 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis on the morning of Dec. 2 when he was approached by armed carjackers near Brush Street and Grand River.

The vehicle was found shortly after, but the child was not inside. Her body has not been found.

Forensic canine expert Martin Grime testified Friday and at Lane's prior preliminary examination that he brought in his victim recovery dog, Morse, two days after the girl went missing. He said the dog detected a cadaver scent inside Lane's car, on the child's blanket and car seat, and in the girl's bedroom and Lane's home.

Grime said the dogs detect only the generic scent of human decomposition. The dogs, he said, cannot determine identity, age, race, gender or the rate of decomposition.

Grime testified in court Friday that Morse has never had a false positive response, and that testing done just prior and after the dog worked in the Jones case was successful.

Thanks for posting Badhorsie,
as we seem to be relentlessy told, The dogs are rubbish and couldnt find their noses if they weren't attached to them, It will be interesting to see what comes of this case.
Good on the Judge to allow the findings to be allowed as evidence, some very nervous people out there methinks!

 

[BritsKate]

This, of course, also means that Mr. Grimes was deemed an expert in his field by the court as well.

 

[fabgod]

Good to know that there are still some people out there who believe that the excellent work done over the years by Mr Grimes and his dogs is not suddenly rubbish on the say so of certain individuals!

Maybe Morse isnt as vindictive and/or as likely to make mistakes as Eddie (200+ cases of success)?
Or maybe, nobody else had ever bled, left food or dirty nappies in the vehicle,
Oh and maybe the perp never cut himself shaving either, maybe!

 

[badhorsie]

I am very vexed by the fact that we are being told that Eddie reacts to all fluids from a live human. I wish that I could speak to Mr Grimes lol.

It seems that the McCanns are the unluckiest couple in the world with all these "coincidences" working against them.

However I am sure that someone will be along shortly to "Dis' the dogs"

 

[badhorsie]

Just to clarify

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

 

[fabgod]

Badhorsie
I think the point is, we know how good the dogs are and it is pretty sad that people feel the need to try and bad mouth all the good work that they have done over the years.
Its quite a compliment to Mr Grimes and his dogs that the only 2 cases that anyone can seem to bring into question are the Madeleine and Jersey ones - let's see, both clouded in controversy, Investigating forces on the ground suggesting a certain theory that is desperately being denied by other possibly involved parties?

Yes, it seems the Dogs certainly know how to pick the cases to suddenly get them wrong eh?