Re: sniffer dogs - a scenario

by Garth 08.06.11 18:03

My opinion was based on my observations.

Whether you agree with my observations as being correct are a matter of OPINION.

It is your OPINION that my OPINION is wrong because in your OPINION the dogs were not led by the owner.

So, to recap.......as usual.......... your opinion counts and mine doesn't because you say so! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 08.06.11 18:06

Garth wrote:My opinion was based on my observations.

Whether you agree with my observations as being correct are a matter of OPINION.

It is your OPINION that my OPINION is wrong because in your OPINION the dogs were not led by the owner.

So, to recap.......as usual.......... your opinion counts and mine doesn't because you say so! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion Garth, as long as it is backed up with facts and reasonable argument. I would however like you to produce some evidence, just one instance when Mr Grimes dogs have been wrong.

by Me 08.06.11 18:09

Garth wrote:My opinion was based on my observations.

Whether you agree with my observations as being correct are a matter of OPINION.

It is your OPINION that my OPINION is wrong because in your OPINION the dogs were not led by the owner.

So, to recap.......as usual.......... your opinion counts and mine doesn't because you say so! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Dear Lord, you just don't get it to you?

I'm saying OUR opinions don't count. Yours & mine. That's becuase we're not experts and without being experts we don't know how these dogs work.

All we can do is to take the statement provided by MG at face value because he is the expert in this field.

If someone of equal expertise to MG wants to criticise and say he led the dogs, then that's a different kettle of fish. But no expert out there has.

Apart from you.

It's not my opinion that your opinion is wrong. I'm saying MG is right becuase he's the expert and has given a binding statement supporting his findings.

If another expert witness has an opinion that he led the dogs that has some validity becuase they will know what they're talking about.

It's clear you don't.

by Me 08.06.11 18:31

Garth wrote:Who said they did count? Not me sunshine. Tis you who keeps banging on about it. And if my opinion counts for nothing, you know, because its just, well, an opinion really, then please tell me how Mr Grimsey could sue me for libel?

Yes you have said my OPINION counts for nothing but its still my bleedin opinion whether you like it or not!

Jezus wept, next you'll be telling me that I LIED! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are you being deliberately thick?

You can have whatever opinion you like. No one is saying you can't. I'm saying your opinion on this subject is worth the square root of nothing becuase you know nothing about the subject.

So given you know nothing about it clearly your opinion on said subject does indeed count for nothing.

But you keep believing it and espousing it by all means just don't expect us to take it seriously.

by Garth 08.06.11 18:50

Right, for clarity, based on my observations of the video it is my opinion that the dogs were 'led' conciously or unconciously by the trainer to the car.

by Guest 09.06.11 10:30

Based on my observations of the dog video and being a dog owner myself, Eddie was well and truly following his nose. When a dogs nose is up in the air, they are trying to process what it is they can smell. Is is one they recognise? Is it close by or far away by how strong it is? Is it upwind or downwind? Winds travelling through a car park can come from more than one direction. From what I observed of Martin Grime's commands, he was simply asking Eddie to 'find', because he knew he was in scent, which means that Martin knew that somewhere in that carpark, there was something that had come into direct contact with a cadaver and he now had to inspect each vehicle more closer. We only saw the edited version, not the full length version, but you can bet every car was checked thoroughly. At no point in time was Eddie led to anything. When we hear Martin shout Eddie, Eddie is being asked to a car more closer. Eddie at no time barked until he was right by the drivers side door seal. In my opinion the wind travelling through that car park was changing the direction of the flow of the smell. Eddie checked all over 10 cars that day and the only one he signalled to with the scent of cadaver, was the one that was used by the McCann's.

by guest 60 09.06.11 12:18

It is my view
that it is POSSIBLE that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'

contaminant OR HUMAN BLOOD SCENT. No evidential or intelligence reliability
can
be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating

evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without

any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.

Volume IX pages
2473 - 2477

August 2007

by **PeterMac** 09.06.11 12:22

You can take a dog to wherever you want, but if it has been trained properly it will not bark if it does not detect what you have trained it to detect.
In other words it is capable of giving you a negative response. It is telling you that there is no such scent there.
Explosive trained dogs are put into planes to check for explosives. They are led there, carried in, and forced to remain, searching and sniffing in every possible place, for as long as the handler deems necessary. If their handler suspects they have missed a bit they will be forced to return, and to do it again. They are lifted into the hold, forced to remain, and told to search. And if the tip-off or threat was deemed to be a serious one they will be told very forceably to 'find', and worked for a very long time. Only then will the handler have the confidence to report that there is nothing there, and the plane will be allowed to fly.
On the say-so of a dog.
"Ask the dogs..." They do.
Dogs trained in this way do not bark just to please. If they did, their careers would be over. Immediately. As would the career and livelihood of the handler.
The problem is that the McCanns have no choice but to try to discredit the dogs. There is no other line they can take. If they admit that the dogs might be correct then they have to accept the probability that Madeleine is dead, and was dead, and therefore the Fund has been a fraud from the start. And that is just for starters.

by Guest 09.06.11 13:28

guest 60 wrote:It is my view
that it is POSSIBLE that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent'

contaminant OR HUMAN BLOOD SCENT. No evidential or intelligence reliability
can
be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating

evidence. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without

any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.

Volume IX pages
2473 - 2477

August 2007

We have recently been able to determine that Eddie who was first trained to detect blood, would have been asked to freeze near the source of the blood. He was later trained on the scent of cadaver, where by he was taught to bark to make his alerts. Therefore, had he found blood he would know to freeze on the spot, just as Keela does. Because he barked, he was alerting to the scent of cadaver.

Two different dogs, signalled the same car and only that car.

by Me 09.06.11 20:05

Garth wrote:Right, for clarity, based on my observations of the video it is my opinion that the dogs were 'led' conciously or unconciously by the trainer to the car.

We know your opinion thanks, but for all the reasons i have stated we don't take it seriously and it has no validiity as to the accuracy or legitimacy of the dogs' findings.

But thank's for sharing anyway!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Big Vern 09.06.11 20:17

Kick this 'Garth' character into touch....lowers the tone of the forum.

by Guest 13.06.11 11:50

A comment elsewhere has just prompted me to think ............

What if the dogs had made these alerts elsewhere? Just as an example RM's villa for instance? What sort of reply would we have had from the McCanns and family then? I'm sure we would have had a whole different version. We wouldn't have had excuses like mosquitoes, bloody meat and fish and smelly nappies and that they were't reliable I'm sure. Would they have believed Madeleine had come to harm if they had alerted elsewhere?

by Guest 13.06.11 14:27

It would have been a very different story I'm sure. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 13.06.11 14:47

Was it this site that used to have on its front page something to the effect of, if a sniffer dog indicated that there were explosives on a plane, would you take no notice and insist on boarding anyway? I guess that if we asked Gerry that question he would say "Ask the dogs!".