Joao Carlos:

Post Reply
honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Joao Carlos:

Post by honestbroker1 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:00 pm

I have just picked this up from Joao Carlos' final PJ report:

Alerts by Eddie:
2 – Area of the backyard, close to the apartment 5A:

- cadaver odour dog:
* in a flowerbed, commented by the dog handler the lightness of the scent detected;
More in an edit ....

In Grime's rogatory interview, he was asked:
'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.

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19580
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Joao Carlos:

Post by Carana » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:48 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:00 pm
I have just picked this up from Joao Carlos' final PJ report:

Alerts by Eddie:
2 – Area of the backyard, close to the apartment 5A:

- cadaver odour dog:
* in a flowerbed, commented by the dog handler the lightness of the scent detected;
More in an edit ....

In Grime's rogatory interview, he was asked:
'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.
You picked up on the first bit. I picked up on the other part, so I don't have a problem.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Joao Carlos:

Post by honestbroker1 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:53 pm

According to Carlos, Grime commented on the lightness of the scent detected.

Grime was asked in his rogatory whether a dog can distinguish between a light or a heavy scent and replied, no.

There has to have been a reason for the question in the rogatory.

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19580
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Joao Carlos:

Post by Carana » Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:34 pm

honestbroker1 wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 2:53 pm
According to Carlos, Grime commented on the lightness of the scent detected.

Grime was asked in his rogatory whether a dog can distinguish between a light or a heavy scent and replied, no.

There has to have been a reason for the question in the rogatory.
Yes, it was one of those half-hearted little woofs. Reasonable question to ask, and reasonable answer IMO. Poor Eddie could have been really hot and just wanting to put his paws up for the night by that stage. And he could have sniffed some compound or other within his never-specified "training parameters" and didn't know whether he was supposed to alert or not.

I can understand that they may have thought that she'd fallen over the balcony, but none of the forensic tests substantiated that possibility, either.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

honestbroker1
Posts: 7318
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Joao Carlos:

Post by honestbroker1 » Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:12 pm

Grime said, in his rogatory interview, that the dog does not distinguish between a 'strong' scent and a 'weak' scent.

And he said, when out deploying his dogs, that the dog (specifically Eddie) does.

But you don't see a problem with that?

We all acknowledge the dog did extraordinarily well to detect a scent of Gerry's blood on the ignition-key of the Renault Scenic.

I bet he would have had to work much less hard to detect a cadaver scent (had there been one, which, of course, there wasn't!). Neither would he have required constant directing and re-directing by Grime until he did pick up a scent.

Let me put it like this.

Suppose, in a controlled experiment, you task a cadaver dog to inspect two cars,

One car has a small drop of human blood secreted somewhere in it.

The other car is a hearse.

Beyond tasking the dog to inspect the vehicles, you don't give the dog any direction.

Which vehicle do you think the dog would be most likely to alert to?

User avatar
Carana
Posts: 19580
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 2:42 pm

Re: Joao Carlos:

Post by Carana » Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:10 pm

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.

Was any evidence found?

No.

End of.
"A professor of mine used to say 'I have as a pet a coprophagic beetle, who eats only dung. His antennae quiver when he detects the presence of his food.'" - Edison, English-language Wikipedia Admin

User avatar
Hael
Posts: 20803
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:34 pm

Re: Joao Carlos:

Post by Hael » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:17 pm

Carana wrote:
Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:10 pm
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.

Was any evidence found?

No.

End of.
Whether the dog trainer has contradicted himself or not, the fact of the mater remains as Carana pointed out, that it's (A) up to the dog trainer/handler to interpretate the alert. It doesn't matter if the type of alert was for 'weak' or 'strong' signal, it all depends on the person interpretation it. And (B) it has to be backed up by forensics, which it wasn't.

The entire argument about the dogs can be summed up in two sentences.

The dogs alerted.
The alerts were not backed up by forensics.
The trolls funding a shamed coppers right to lie about Kate and Gerry McCann are a new level of weirdo.[omitted] they may have destroyed all hope for good.Talking up conspiracy theories is one thing.Wrecking the search for an abducted child is another.-The Sun

Post Reply