Inside the Animal Mind

by Okeydokey 30.01.14 0:29

Don't think the McCanns will have like BBC2's TV offering on Wed night. The new series of Inside the Animal Mind by Chris Packham began with an amazing demonstration of the powers of well trained sniffer dogs...from the Guardian:

"I knew dogs were good with their noses. I didn't know they were that good. Fern here – a cutely life-jacketed sprocker (half springer, half cocker) spaniel hanging eagerly over the front of a rubber dinghy – can sniff out a tin of pork under 7m of water and a further metre of silt at the bottom of lake on a howling windy wet day in Northern Ireland. As Chris Packham says, it kind of makes a mockery of those fugitives running down creeks to escape baying bloodhounds in the movies. Movie fugitives, don't bother; you might as well keep your boots dry"

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2014/jan/29/inside-the-animal-mind-tv-review

by MRNOODLES 30.01.14 0:38

I still wouldn't rely on them winkwink

by Guest 30.01.14 1:01

They are amazing creatures.
I have a JRT who sniffs the air madly when my husband is about two mins from home,their noses are so sensitive.

Thats very good about bloodhounds:-)

by Jemmied_Shatter 30.01.14 18:05

Bellisa wrote:They are amazing creatures.
I have a JRT who sniffs the air madly when my husband is about two mins from home,their noses are so sensitive.

Thats very good about bloodhounds:-)

Well I've got Beardies and I cannot even stop off for a quick pint in the village on my way home. Pub is about 200 yards away and they are laying by the kitchen door barking as soon as I get out of the car.

by Rasputin 30.01.14 19:58

MRNOODLES wrote:I still wouldn't rely on them

Notoriously unreliable !

by watendlath 31.01.14 6:51

Okeydokey wrote:Don't think the McCanns will have liked BBC2's TV offering on Wed night. The new series of Inside the Animal Mind by Chris Packham began with an amazing demonstration of the powers of well trained sniffer dogs...

I'm not too sure they wouldn't have liked it. From the Guardian article:

So wolves and dogs are equally good at sniffing out a cheese treat hidden under a cup. But they prioritise their senses differently.
If the dog's owner points at the cup without any cheese underneath, the dog will still go to that one, even though there are no nice cheesy smells coming from it.

Dogs put visual stimulus first; they have been domesticated, turned into obedient idiots by us.
Not so the wolf, which follows its nose, literally.

Wasn't one of Kate and Gerry's excuses about the dogs that Martin Grimes was signalling to Eddie?

If there is a whitewash on this case this will no doubt be used to explain Eddie's alerts.

They should have used wolves instead.

Inside the Animal Mind 2Q==

Ask the wolves, Sandra!

by bobbin 31.01.14 8:53

[quote="watendlath"]

Okeydokey wrote:Don't think the McCanns will have liked BBC2's TV offering on Wed night. The new series of Inside the Animal Mind by Chris Packham began with an amazing demonstration of the powers of well trained sniffer dogs...

I'm not too sure they wouldn't have liked it. From the Guardian article:

So wolves and dogs are equally good at sniffing out a cheese treat hidden under a cup. But they prioritise their senses differently.
If the dog's owner points at the cup without any cheese underneath, the dog will still go to that one, even though there are no nice cheesy smells coming from it.

Dogs put visual stimulus first; they have been domesticated, turned into obedient idiots by us.
Not so the wolf, which follows its nose, literally.

Wasn't one of Kate and Gerry's excuses about the dogs that Martin Grimes was signalling to Eddie?

If there is a whitewash on this case this will no doubt be used to explain Eddie's alerts.

They should have used wolves instead.

Inside the Animal Mind 2Q==

Ask the wolves, Sandra![/quote

I was watching a programme last night on Australian airport border controls. They were of course using dogs, as I have also witnessed in Vancouver airport, etc. etc. to sniff out, whatever.

With the thousands of people passing through airport on a daily basis, and with the many more thousands of luggage bags including their items, if the poor old dog handler had to signal to each item, to say 'go lookie', they'd be on their knees after one day on the job and the word would soon go out to all potential drug carriers and other felons, that it's actually just an easy 'walk-through' free for all.

So, the idea that the owner 'indicates' where the dog should 'indicate' rather defies the known effectiveness of the dog's noses, although, because our human noses don't do the same job, some people have difficulty accepting that something else, like 'an animal for god's sake' can actually do something 'better' than us 'the superior, human beings'.

Trust the dogs, Sandra, the wolves or anything else that has proven time after time to be so reliable as to be 'reliably reliable'. big grin

by Guest 31.01.14 9:17

Forget the dogs then ...but what about Martin Grimes? He must have one hell of a sense of smell to be able to pick out the exact items and places contaminated with blood and bodily fluids to be able to signal to the dogs where to indicate.

by Guest 31.01.14 9:18

The forum liked my post so much, it entered it twice big grin

by watendlath 31.01.14 9:54

Bobbin and Poe, I agree with you; everything points towards the dogs being right.

The problem is that a programme where it is suggested that these dogs can be manipulated by their owners plants doubt in the minds of many of those watching.

And if SY really do intend a whitewash they could quote from that programme.
The McCanns certainly could as well.

by bobbin 31.01.14 11:27

watendlath wrote:Bobbin and Poe, I agree with you; everything points towards the dogs being right.

The problem is that a programme where it is suggested that these dogs can be manipulated by their owners plants doubt in the minds of many of those watching.

And if SY really do intend a whitewash they could quote from that programme.
The McCanns certainly could as well.

I agree, but seeds of doubt in front of a judge and jury in a court of law, will probably require a certain amount of persuasive evidence.
Since I have not yet seen Gerry's collected works of "contradictory evidence and proven times that forensically trained sniffer dogs have spectacularly failed to detect what they have been trained to detect", I cannot see that the known record and usage of sniffer dogs, by leading law enforcement agencies, throughout the world, can be out- ~~sayed~~ -weighed by the wee whingeing ~~suspect~~ glaswegian. lol4

by worriedmum 31.01.14 13:18

The McCanns and the Eugene Zapata case-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482105/Madeleine-McCanns-consult-American-lawyers-cadaver-dog-evidence.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1972541/posts

by Okeydokey 01.02.14 2:40

bobbin wrote:
watendlath wrote:Bobbin and Poe, I agree with you; everything points towards the dogs being right.

The problem is that a programme where it is suggested that these dogs can be manipulated by their owners plants doubt in the minds of many of those watching.

And if SY really do intend a whitewash they could quote from that programme.
The McCanns certainly could as well.
I agree, but seeds of doubt in front of a judge and jury in a court of law, will probably require a certain amount of persuasive evidence.
Since I have not yet seen Gerry's collected works of "contradictory evidence and proven times that forensically trained sniffer dogs have spectacularly failed to detect what they have been trained to detect", I cannot see that the known record and usage of sniffer dogs, by leading law enforcement agencies, throughout the world, can be out- ~~sayed~~ -weighed by the wee whingeing ~~suspect~~ glaswegian.

Well as the dog in question was sniffing for pork, I think we have to agree Gerry is an expert in secreting porkies in the most unlikely of places...so give him his due.
violin

by Guest 30.03.14 19:37

I went on a googling spray just now and unearthed some interesting articles on cadaver dogs.

I am, at any rate, going to get the "difficult pet turned cadaver dog" book :-)
Maybe I can do that with one of my dogs too?

Cadaver Dog Handbook
http://books.google.fr/books?id=WTXuc7BjA-QC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=time+develop+cadaver+scent&source=bl&ots=XREMNLEIyb&sig=MH9WJ6LshlrXjUmnEWi1UtiW5KQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=pT44U_3ENai90QW994D4CQ&ved=0CGAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=time%20develop%20cadaver%20scent&f=false
scroll down to page 13 ...

Cadaver dogs’ evidence admissible in court:
http://www.policek9.com/Fleck/Cadaver%20Dogs.pdf
in USA cases going back well before 2007 ...
Gerry? Are you listening ?

And maybe another book to read:
http://io9.com/how-i-turned-my-problem-pet-into-a-cadaver-dog-1459791893/all
:-)

“Soon after death, the decay process of mammalian soft tissues begins and leads to the release of cadaveric volatile compounds in the surrounding environment.”
“The decay process of vertebrates begins rapidly after death (i.e. four minutes after death) [1] and leads to the release of postmortem compounds in the ecosystem [2]–[3].”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039005
Enhanced Characterization of the Smell of Death

Certification of Cadaver dogs [USA]:
http://www.letsk9professionals.org/cadaver.html
“Successful completion will require that 80% of all finds tested on be located, and that a false positive rate of more than 10% of the total number of finds worked will result in “non qualifying.”
Gerry? Are you listening?

by Woofer 30.03.14 20:54

Whilst reading through some of your links I was led to this one about human death and decay :-

" To begin with, when your heart stops beating, your body's cells and tissues stop receiving oxygen. Brain cells are the first to die -- usually within three to seven minutes [source: Macnair]. (Bone and skin cells, though, will survive for several days.) Blood begins draining from the capillaries, pooling in lower-lying portions of the body, creating a pale appearance in some places and a darker appearance in others.

but it was this bit that interested me ....

About three hours after death, rigor mortis -- a stiffening of muscles -- sets in. Around 12 hours after death, the body will feel cool, and within 24 hours (depending on body fat and external temperatures), it will lose all internal heat in a process called algor mortis. The muscle tissue begins to lose its stiffness after about 36 hours, and within about 72 hours of dying, the body's rigor mortis will subside."

If MBM wasn`t discovered until the morning she would have stiffened in the position at death and not relaxed back for 36-72 hrs. So unless her body, head and legs were straight, it would have been difficult to do a removal in the first 36 hrs IMO.

by Guest 30.03.14 21:59

Rigor Mortis is different in small children : shorter, or sometimes next to none-existent.
Apart from that, massaging the body will relax some of the tissue.
That's what I know, but I will try and find a link for you.

by Woofer 30.03.14 22:14

Châtelaine wrote:Rigor Mortis is different in small children : shorter, or sometimes next to none-existent.
Apart from that, massaging the body will relax some of the tissue.
That's what I know, but I will try and find a link for you.

Thanks Châtelaine - I didn`t know that.

by Nina 30.03.14 22:46

Châtelaine wrote:Rigor Mortis is different in small children : shorter, or sometimes next to none-existent.
Apart from that, massaging the body will relax some of the tissue.
That's what I know, but I will try and find a link for you.

Massaging the deceased in a bath of warm water also reduces rigor mortis.

by Guest 30.03.14 22:56

Nina wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Rigor Mortis is different in small children : shorter, or sometimes next to none-existent.
Apart from that, massaging the body will relax some of the tissue.
That's what I know, but I will try and find a link for you.
Massaging the deceased in a bath of warm water also reduces rigor mortis.

***
Thank you, Nina.