A simple explanation to a dog alert that is not widely recognised

Lynda Greatbanks shared Bohden Chalawaka's photo.


Courtesy of Bohden Chalawaka and nicked off Lizzy Hideho Taylor 

Thanks so much to Bohden Chalawaka for giving us a simple expanation to an alert that is not widely recognised....
The ‘Official’ report by the handler and trainer Martin Grime states this:
- “CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ.
-All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene. “
- “My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment. He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' ……….”
- “The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:
- “The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.”





‎
Bohden Chalawaka‎ to The Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY
3 hrs
A little more ambiguity

How many of you remember stepping into Santa’s Grotto for the first time as a child or as a parent & seeing the look on your children’s faces when they enter his Grotto ? It’s a bit dark and scary but then all of a sudden you see them, eyes wide open and staring, lights everywhere, Fairy lights, twinkling all around you and above your head. What an enchanting magical moment that is.

I can imagine some of you will be thinking …. Eh, what’s Santa’s Grotto and Fairy lights got to do with this case?
Well tbh , nowt really, it’s just a bit of an analogy and it is getting near to Xmas 
The last thing anyone wants to do is cause more confusion about the ‘alerts’ given by Eddie the EVRD / cadaver dog, yet at the same time it's important to try and understand the signals and alerts he gave when searching the apartments. Rather than reproduce the whole of Martin Grime’s report let’s just focus on Eddies reactions, specifically when entering apartment 5A for the first time and compare that to what we know was the first alert, or what we think was the first alert when he detected the scent in right hand corner by the rear bedroom door.
- The ‘Official’ report by the handler and trainer Martin Grime states this:
- “CANINE SEARCHES AT FIVE APARTMENTS AT PRIA DA LUZ.
-All five apartments were searched using the EVRD. The only alert indications were at apartment 5a, the reported scene. “
- “My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment. He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search. On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent' ……….”
- “The dog's behaviour for these alerts led me to the following opinions:
- “The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible evidence to be located only the remaining scent.”

It’s pretty clear that Eddie’s behaviour changed and that he picked up a scent as soon as the front door to the apartment was opened. His behaviour indicated that he detected something in that environment even before he stepped foot through the door. Couldn't have been twinkling fairly lights that’s for sure. Of course it’s unlikely a dog would show any interest what so ever in seeing twinkling lights and whatever it was he detected he didn't actually see it, but found it with his nose, like dogs do. The question is what was it that appears to have captured Eddie’s virtuosity and how and why could it have been so tangibly recognisable to him.

We all know that scent travels, even in water and under the ground. The human body when decomposing simply lets volatile molecular chemical compounds drift into the surrounding environment. Scientifically it’s almost impossible to explain and detect but this ‘plume’ of gasses rises from the body and eventually disperses. Like all molecules though they don’t just disappear and due to the signature of this particular molecular compound it is an extremely adherent substance. It has been described as something like molecular chewing gum and the residue will stick to anything.

Perhaps this is why cross contamination is so easy, though like sticky chewing gum it eventually hardens and loses adherence, by which time it may have drifted around in the air current and attached itself to various places and items, ceiling, walls and furnishings. In a confined space such as a room or apartment with limited air flow and less space to disperse, it would be like Santa’s Grotto to a trained detection dog that can detect the residual scent of this compound years later.

The human body begins to decompose very quickly, at the time of clinical death. Though science has yet to understand what or to be more specific which compounds or combination of compounds the dogs actually smell or detect. It is documented that they can detect the scent shortly after death, which confirms what is already known, chemicals are being produced and released into the environment in the fresh stage of the decomposition process.

Had whatever it was lit up like fairly lights I'm certain it would have been a sight to behold, or in Eddie’s case, when the door to the apartment was opened, a smell to behold.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1678310615746758/

What is the point of this article?

And why the title: 'A little bit of ambiguity'?

What 'ambiguity' is there about the alerts of Eddie and Keela?

This article is both meaningless and rubbish. It tells us nothing at all.

I think the article suggests that the dog was alerting immediately upon the apartment door being opened. Thus reinforcing the subsequent alerts!

The Rooster wrote:I think the article suggests that the dog was alerting immediately upon the apartment door being opened. Thus reinforcing the subsequent alerts!

We've known that all along! Martin Grime says it on the video.

So, I repeat, why all this waffle with the title: 'A bit of ambiguity'?

There is no 'ambiguity'.

It is an utterly pointless article.

@TB - I agree that the title is inappropriate and certainly doesn't convey the message in the rest of the article, or reality.
As you say @TB, 'Why the title, "A Bit of Ambiguity"?

But, I have to say the analogy between the sticky decomposition molecules and xmas lights works OK for me. I think all the writer was trying to get across is the point that EVRD dogs, such as Eddie, are completely reliable forensic tools as they perceive the 'world' around them in a much more detailed (molecular) way than humans. Eddie sensed (by smell) the 'xmas lights' instantly the door was opened just as we would have sensed (by sight) an apartment full of real xmas lights. No great revelation but one persons shared thoughts on the subject.

skyrocket wrote:@TB - I agree that the title is inappropriate and certainly doesn't convey the message in the rest of the article, or reality.
As you say @TB, 'Why the title, "A Bit of Ambiguity"?

But, I have to say the analogy between the sticky decomposition molecules and xmas lights works OK for me. I think all the writer was trying to get across is the point that EVRD dogs, such as Eddie, are completely reliable forensic tools as they perceive the 'world' around them in a much more detailed (molecular) way than humans. Eddie sensed (by smell) the 'xmas lights' instantly the door was opened just as we would have sensed (by sight) an apartment full of real xmas lights. No great revelation but one persons shared thoughts on the subject.

Yes, that's what I feel skyrocket.