quote:
Originally posted by Yellow Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
quote:
Originally posted by Yellow Rose:
Re Dogs picking up on scents etc. I watch an Australian airport programme about Passport Control and boy are the Aussie's strict and observant about who and what is coming into their country. They use dogs to sniff out drugs in luggage and when the dogs give a positive signal that person is pulled over for questioning, they're questioned, searched and taken to hospital via the police for internal examinations if it's felt necessary. What I've learnt overtime from watching many programmes is yes a dog can identify the scent of drugs - as they're trained to, other dogs are trained to identify blood - but luggage can show positive reactions to drugs if it's been in proximity to it from other sources and not necessarily from the owner of the luggage. So dogs can be right in their scenting but wrong in their assumption of who's responsible for the scent
How would that explain the cadaver scent ?
Animals have instincts that most humans don't, how do we know if they differentiate between the death of one species or another. In a nutshell I still don't see why some believe the McCann's are involved
The well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).
Reference:
Cadaver dogsâa study on detection of contaminated carpet squares.
Oesterhelweg L, KrÃķber S, Rottmann K, WillhÃķft J, Braun C, Thies N, PÞschel K, Silkenath J, Gehl A.
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany
The McCanns tried one judge in their favour:
The Eugene Zapata Case
In this case there was no blood though. Additionally Eddie indicated at several places.
The judge agreed with an analysis of the three dogsâ track record by Zapataâs defence team that found they were incorrect 78 per cent, 71 per cent and 62 per cent of the time.
Since Eddie indicated SEVERAL times 6 as far as I know, even by the worst number 78% he would have had a chance of roughly 22% to be wrong 6 times.
If you take the worst case numbers in the research paper scenario around 10% wrong, the chances of him detecting 6 times wrong would be 0.0001%.
Additional to that you have the handlers opinion..