Reliability of cadaver dogs - 2014 study

by Jerry371 10.08.18 20:27

Hi all, first post by a new member. Fascinating - I'm working my way through Richard Hall's endless videos!

Watching Gerry McCann, several years ago, on the alleged unreliability of cadaver dogs, made me do a quick Google search, which turned up a 2014 study from the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International, by Riezzo et al: https://shrtm.nu/8LHd.

I wanted to attach the article but can't find a way to attach files. Sorry if I'm missing something obvious.

Anyway, here is some key text from the article:

"In this admittedly small sample, we obtained very exciting results that conﬁrmed the utility of well trained dogs in investigations on the scene of crime in all the situations when biological material cannot be found through human visual abilities. In fact, human biological traces can be concealed; dogs are smaller and more agile than humans, and they can ﬁt their bodies into spaces that an adult man or woman usually cannot.

"Our study showed that both the dogs were able to detect human blood samples even when very low concentrations of blood were stored in the tubes, showing high levels of olfactory sensitivity. The PPV that assesses the proportion of the dog’s target-present responses that are correct, showed high numbers, close or very close to 100 in all the trials. Our dogs achieved a high hit rates, missing very few targets."

So much for not being reliable...I wonder what Dr McCann would say to that?

Cheers,
Jerry