• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Cadaver Dogs (Corpse Sniffer Dogs): Oddities & Issues

Xanatico

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Nov 11, 2005
Messages
1,105
(Excerpted from the Madeleine McCann Disappearance thread)

"The new theory emerged after a report from Britain said specialist sniffer dogs had detected the "smell of death" on the steps"

What? The smell of death? What the hell are they talking about? What exactly does death smell like, or how did the dogs inform the handlers it smelled like death? A rotting corpse would certainly give a smell, but if Madeline fell down the stairs I hardly doubt she was left there for long enough to start decomposing. Someone is making things up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"The new theory emerged after a report from Britain said specialist sniffer dogs had detected the "smell of death" on the steps"

What? The smell of death? What the hell are they talking about? What exactly does death smell like, or how did the dogs inform the handlers it smelled like death? A rotting corpse would certainly give a smell, but if Madeline fell down the stairs I hardly doubt she was left there for long enough to start decomposing. Someone is making things up.

Well, from what I've read about the case, it seems that specialist "cadaver dogs" can detect the scent of a dead body even some time after it has been there. The body does not have to be decomposed, but it does apparently need to have been dead for at least two hours. As you say it seems unlikely that a dead child would have been left on the steps for that length of time.
 
(Excerpted from the Madeleine McCann Disappearance thread)
Quake42 said:
In regards to the cadaver dogs, he raises the point that in a court, the dogs results have been ruled to be inconclusive. Something which many of the anti-McCann websites seem to ignore, assuming the dogs findings are 100% accurate.

I can't comment on legal precedents around cadaver dogs' evidence, or on how reliable such dogs are in general. I have however read that the specific dogs used in this case have been correct in every other investigation in which they have been used. If true, it is rather damning.

Private Eye looked at the dogs, as they were also part of the driving force behind the wild claims made at Haut de la Garenne, and their findings are highly suspect - I summarise the piece here, they say:

It was the same jetsetting canines who were called in to help find missing Madeleine McCann. Portuguese police switched the focus of their investigations on to her parents after Eddie was said to have picked up the "smell of corpse" on Mrs McCann's bible and "body fluids" in the boot of the holiday car, where later DNA traces were said to have been found. Keela was said to have detected blood traces on the washed walls of the family's apartment, from where Madeleine disappeared. Neither discovery appears to have stood up to forensic scrutiny. ...

Eddie and Keela used to be South Yorkshire police dogs, but now they and their former policeman handler have gone freelance. It seems that there are no guidelines governing how such dogs are used and no test to see how reliable they are. yet their responses are seized on by police and press as an indication of events in a way that a detective's hunch, or a provisional line of inquiry, never would be. ...

John Barrett, a former Scotland Yard dog handler, also indicated that the trained dogs used in an attempt to detect a "death smell" on Mrs McCann's Bible and clothes were brought in too long after Madeleine vanished.

The crucial scent lasts for no longer than a month, he said.
Embedded link is dead. The MIA webpage (only partially quoted above) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/2008040...Super-sniffer-dogs-or-canine-Clever-Hans.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Excerpted from the Madeleine McCann Disappearance thread)

no strong evidence apart from... what, the sniffer dogs finding traces of a dead person in the boot of the McCann's hire care. is that not quite strong in one direction?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
no strong evidence apart from... what, the sniffer dogs finding traces of a dead person in the boot of the McCann's hire care. is that not quite strong in one direction?

That's what the dog handlers said the dogs had found. It's not evidence, not on its own. The dogs can't talk, you can't cross-question them in court. They can smell something for sure, but they don't have a nuanced vocabulary to describe each of what must be a huge variety of death-smells.

How do we know what they smelled? Was it dried blood, drippings from putrefaction, ancient urine, traces of vomit, spilled brains, whatever? They must be able to detect all of those and more. How does the handler interpret the dog's response?One bark for 'blood', two barks for 'sick'?

We shouldn't place all our faith in the dogs.
 
escargot,

The dog doesn't need to indicate what form the smell takes. It should be enough to indicate that there has been something dead in there.

As it was a hire car the police shouldn't have had too much trouble getting a list of everyone who had hired it from new. And they could then ask them all if they had carried anything like a dead animal etc in the boot.

If non of them did, and as all before the girl's disappearance were not under suspicion, then the possibility of a body is strengthened.

Then principle is very similar to a drug sniffer dog indication that your bag either has or has had something in it. It is enough to make the officials suspicious.

Wasn't there some talk of blood samples ? What happened with that line of investigation ?

INT21
 
That's what the dog handlers said the dogs had found. It's not evidence, not on its own. The dogs can't talk, you can't cross-question them in court. They can smell something for sure, but they don't have a nuanced vocabulary to describe each of what must be a huge variety of death-smells.

How do we know what they smelled? Was it dried blood, drippings from putrefaction, ancient urine, traces of vomit, spilled brains, whatever? They must be able to detect all of those and more. How does the handler interpret the dog's response?One bark for 'blood', two barks for 'sick'?

We shouldn't place all our faith in the dogs.

This is all from memory but:

A British police dog-trainer was drafted in. He used one dog specifically trained to detect blood, and a cadaver dog trained to detect the 'scent of death'-cadaverine. Of the latter it has been shown that they can detect a location a dead body has been even a very long time after the event.

Both dogs separately marked a cupboard in the McCann's flat. The bood dog marked a location on some tiles near a large window that a sofa had been pushed over. That location was checked and a minute amount of blood was found possibly matching Madeleine's but wasn't tight enought to use in court i.e COULD have been another family member.

Both dogs (again seperately) marked the car keyhole and boot of the hire car they used after she went missing. I saw the video of this- it was carried out in well controlled conditions in a large warehouse building with lots of other cars....both dogs not only marked those areas but made a bee-line for THAT SPECIFIC CAR!

So..

I'm open to the idea that the dogs can potentially be wrong but being wrong so damn consistently flies in the face of all reason.
 
(Excerpted from the Madeleine McCann Disappearance thread)

... The sniffer dog evidence is worth looking into - I'm taking it that you haven't looked at it as you say it's 'conflicting'. It's not conflicting, the dogs identified the same place in the flat, behind the sofa, and they identified the McCann's hire car when their handler didn't know which of the cars in the garage was the McCann's. They did their doggy job. How anyone wants to interpret that is another matter. But they are "professional" dogs, they've been trained to respond to dead bodies and human blood. Not bags of rubbish or rotting sandwiches. Dead bodies. And the cars were checked some time after the abduction, because it was only hired after the abduction - I don't know if you know that.

If you're interested (and it is interesting) the transcripts for the dog searches and Martin Grimes' reports are here:
https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.com/2017/01/sniffer-dogs-in-mccann-apartment.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sniffer dog evidence is worth looking into - I'm taking it that you haven't looked at it as you say it's 'conflicting'. It's not conflicting, the dogs identified the same place in the flat, behind the sofa, and they identified the McCann's hire car when their handler didn't know which of the cars in the garage was the McCann's. They did their doggy job. How anyone wants to interpret that is another matter. But they are "professional" dogs, they've been trained to respond to dead bodies and human blood. Not bags of rubbish or rotting sandwiches. Dead bodies...

This is not exactly true.

I believe that the dogs used were brought over from the UK. In the UK sniffer dogs are trained with pork - it's illegal to use actual human cadavers - which is precisely why things like bags of rubbish and rotting sandwiches can, and do, produce false positives.

Beyond the discovery of an actual body or body part (in the case of a cadaver dog), the real value of any evidence gained will be a product of the relationship between the dog and its handling and the further processing of any information which may have potentially been indicated.

The fact is that a reaction is by no means, in itself, a smoking gun.
 
Why don't they train the dogs in a body farm, they have been donated surely the bodies wont mind, would they
 
I believe that the dogs used were brought over from the UK. In the UK sniffer dogs are trained with pork - it's illegal to use actual human cadavers - which is precisely why things like bags of rubbish and rotting sandwiches can, and do, produce false positives.
I agree that we don't have a body farm in the UK. So we do use pigs for forensic research like that, leaving them out for flies and beetles to get stuck into.

But surely the dogs are trained with a bottle of cadaverine that comes from dead bodies. That would be absurd if not, if they were being trained to recognise dead pigs and not dead people, then they wouldn't indicate the right things at all. I (respectfully) don't think you're right there. I think they're trained with cadaverine.

(I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second paragraph?)
 
...But surely the dogs are trained with a bottle of cadaverine that comes from dead bodies. That would be absurd if not, if they were being trained to recognise dead pigs and not dead people, then they wouldn't indicate the right things at all. I (respectfully) don't think you're right there. I think they're trained with cadaverine...

It's illegal to use human remains for training in the UK (and, I think, the rest of the EU) - I'm not sure precisely why the law differentiates between the training of medical personnel using human bodies, and other forms of training, but it does.

I'm pretty sure that cadavarine based on human tissue falls under this ban, and I believe that to circumvent the inherent issues involved in using comparative tissue there are efforts being made to isolate the common signifiers between pig flesh, and other animal products, and human remains.

(I'm not quite sure what you mean by your second paragraph?)

I mean - that a cadaver or blood dog appearing to signify the presence of evidence is not evidence in and of itself, but an indicator that further forensic examination may be productive.

I don't mean to undermine the value of blood or cadaver dogs - they clearly have a place, and can be very effective; but they are part of an array of investigative methods - not a magic wand. (And this is the case even when they have been trained with human tissue.)
 
(Excerpted from the Madeleine McCann Disappearance thread)
it's illegal to use actual human cadavers
Well there's your problem. You've trained your sniffer dogs to find pork, not cadavers. Lo and behold, they're in Spain looking for cadavers and they find pork. Am I the only one who is not surprised? Plenty of fine pork products in Spain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plenty of pork about here to but the dogs seem to cope in the UK.
 
Quite interesting the Cadaver dogs thing, I did not realise
till now that if the Tinternet is to be believed what was going
on in the background to discredit the dogs.
 
Well there's your problem. You've trained your sniffer dogs to find pork, not cadavers. Lo and behold, they're in Spain looking for cadavers and they find pork. Am I the only one who is not surprised? Plenty of fine pork products in Spain.

The problem I have with the reliance on the cadaver/blood dogs. They can only provide a hint if something maybe having happened in an area. It is then up to the police to find actual DNA evidence which would back that up. Blood. Hair. Sweat. Skin fragments.

No evidence was ever found to corroborate this. Who is to say that the dogs were picking up on scents in that corner of a room, and by that wall, and by that car because somebody who had that stink on their clothing had simply stood there.

To use your example, pork. A guy who happened to have eaten some kind of pork based tapas foodstuff that might have been on the turn? Who is to say that’s not the actual link here?

The one thing that actually has bothered me about the dogs is that they don’t fit the timeline neatly, purely because the hire car was only acquired by the McCann’s so long after the disappearance. ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To use your example, pork. A guy who happened to have eaten some kind of pork based tapas foodstuff that might have been on the turn? Who is to say that’s not the actual link here?
CAVEAT: No doubt the pork needs to be rotting a bit. Cadavers et al.
 
CAVEAT: No doubt the pork needs to be rotting a bit. Cadavers et al.

Well, yes. But I think the point is that scents can get onto clothing, into rooms, by multiple means. And sniffer dogs cannot give us any kind of timeline for what they are sniffing.

For example, it would be impossible for the dogs to know if any such smell of decomposition was in Flat 5a before the McCann's even arrived.

It is essential that once a sniffer dog signals a scent it is followed up by provable DNA evidence. Such evidence simply did not turn up here.
 
... If Madeleine *had* been killed in that flat there was zero evidence to support that theory beyond the responses of two sniffer dogs, which could not conclusively prove anything directly. Even if they were smelling decomposing tissue or blood the dogs alone could not identify whose either of those would have belonged to, or if the scents they were picking up were from either before the McCanns arrived or even after they had left. ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Excerpted from the Madeleine McCann Disappearance thread)

Sniffer dogs -
Someone posted a link to his article today about the search for Shannon Matthews.
Shannon Matthews hunt cost police £3.2m

Here's the relevant bit -

Prosecutor Julian Goose QC told the court today that the 24-day hunt cost almost £3.2 million and involved three quarters of all the UK's specially-trained police dogs.

Did the dogs find her, a mere mile away from her home, in the dwelling of a relation of her mother's boyfriend?
Nope, she was discovered after a tip-off from a suspicious member of the public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sniffer dogs -
Someone posted a link to his article today about the search for Shannon Matthews.
Shannon Matthews hunt cost police £3.2m

Here's the relevant bit -



Did the dogs find her, a mere mile away from her home, in the dwelling of a relation of her mother's boyfriend?
Nope, she was discovered after a tip-off from a suspicious member of the public.
Would that be because cadaver dogs and tracker dogs have different training? I don't know, but it would seem likely.
 
Would that be because cadaver dogs and tracker dogs have different training? I don't know, but it would seem likely.
Im pretty sure sniffer dogs (not drug/explosive/money dogs) are trained to follow a scent, usually taken from a personal item, a shoe or piece of clothing worn recently, where as cadaver dogs are specifically trained to sniff out decomposition traces.
 
Would that be because cadaver dogs and tracker dogs have different training? I don't know, but it would seem likely.
One assumes three quarters of all the UK's specially-trained police dogs would include a selection of whatever type was available, probably apart from the explosive detection ones.
 
Can dogs detect where dead bodies have been, especially months after? An interesting article.

Mark Redwine kept mementos of his youngest son in the cab of his truck.

The boy’s name, Dylan, is tattooed on his left shoulder. He distributed missing person posters at truck stops. In November 2012, his 13-year-old son had arrived to spend Thanksgiving at Redwine’s cabin, near the San Juan National Forest in southwestern Colorado. Redwine told an FBI investigator that he left Dylan asleep on the couch when he went to town. When he returned, the boy was gone.

More than 6 months later, hikers found skeletal remains on a trail high in the desert-clear air, about 16 kilometers from Redwine’s cabin. Authorities confirmed the bones belonged to Dylan, but the local coroner could not determine cause of death. To go missing is not a crime, but Redwine’s ex-wife, Elaine Hall, and the couple’s oldest son came to suspect Redwine did something to make Dylan disappear. Redwine flatly denied any involvement, but police soon homed in on him. On 5 August 2013, the investigation took a dramatic turn when Carren Corcoran arrived in Durango, Colorado, with her German shepherd, Molly. At the time, Corcoran worked for the Madison, Wisconsin, police department. In her off hours, she ran Canine Search Solutions, a private firm that specialized in using dogs trained to sniff out cadavers to search for missing people. By her count, she had worked 265 cases in 30-odd years. Molly, or “Bitty,” as Corcoran called the dog, was unusually small for her breed. Molly had started out as “a timid little puppy that was given up to a rescue,” Corcoran later wrote, but under her tutelage the dog became “a legend in the field of human remains detection.”

Corcoran and Molly met local police at a La Plata County Sheriff ’s Office warehouse known as Area 51. Inside, Corcoran let Molly off leash. “Go find,” she said. Nose down, Molly sniffed at the concrete floor. Corcoran understood the dog’s behavior to mean the area was all clear—free of odors. Then she asked investigators to bring in the evidence, three paper packages containing clothes Mark Redwine had allegedly worn at the time of Dylan’s disappearance. Corcoran again commanded Molly to search. This time, her dog went up to the bags, gave a deep, audible sniff, looked Corcoran in the eye, and sat down next to two of them. Because Corcoran had trained Molly to sit when the dog detected the odor of human remains, those “indications” suggested the odor of a dead body lingered on jeans, a pair of sneakers, and a work shirt. ...

https://www.science.org/content/article/should-dog-s-sniff-be-enough-convict-person-murder
 
Can dogs detect where dead bodies have been, especially months after? An interesting article.

Mark Redwine kept mementos of his youngest son in the cab of his truck.

The boy’s name, Dylan, is tattooed on his left shoulder. He distributed missing person posters at truck stops. In November 2012, his 13-year-old son had arrived to spend Thanksgiving at Redwine’s cabin, near the San Juan National Forest in southwestern Colorado. Redwine told an FBI investigator that he left Dylan asleep on the couch when he went to town. When he returned, the boy was gone.

More than 6 months later, hikers found skeletal remains on a trail high in the desert-clear air, about 16 kilometers from Redwine’s cabin. Authorities confirmed the bones belonged to Dylan, but the local coroner could not determine cause of death. To go missing is not a crime, but Redwine’s ex-wife, Elaine Hall, and the couple’s oldest son came to suspect Redwine did something to make Dylan disappear. Redwine flatly denied any involvement, but police soon homed in on him. On 5 August 2013, the investigation took a dramatic turn when Carren Corcoran arrived in Durango, Colorado, with her German shepherd, Molly. At the time, Corcoran worked for the Madison, Wisconsin, police department. In her off hours, she ran Canine Search Solutions, a private firm that specialized in using dogs trained to sniff out cadavers to search for missing people. By her count, she had worked 265 cases in 30-odd years. Molly, or “Bitty,” as Corcoran called the dog, was unusually small for her breed. Molly had started out as “a timid little puppy that was given up to a rescue,” Corcoran later wrote, but under her tutelage the dog became “a legend in the field of human remains detection.”

Corcoran and Molly met local police at a La Plata County Sheriff ’s Office warehouse known as Area 51. Inside, Corcoran let Molly off leash. “Go find,” she said. Nose down, Molly sniffed at the concrete floor. Corcoran understood the dog’s behavior to mean the area was all clear—free of odors. Then she asked investigators to bring in the evidence, three paper packages containing clothes Mark Redwine had allegedly worn at the time of Dylan’s disappearance. Corcoran again commanded Molly to search. This time, her dog went up to the bags, gave a deep, audible sniff, looked Corcoran in the eye, and sat down next to two of them. Because Corcoran had trained Molly to sit when the dog detected the odor of human remains, those “indications” suggested the odor of a dead body lingered on jeans, a pair of sneakers, and a work shirt. ...

https://www.science.org/content/article/should-dog-s-sniff-be-enough-convict-person-murder
That is amazing. 6 months after? Presumably, those clothes had been laundered a few times since.
Also, very sad.
 
The Guardian has an article by the author of Headspace: On the Trail of Sniffer Dogs, Wasp Wardens and other Dumb Friends in the Surveillance Industry:
The suspicion generated by an alert from a sniffer dog is difficult to dissipate, as the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the supposed "scent of death" illustrates. Three months after Madeleine's disappearance, dog handler Martin Grime (then working for South Yorkshire police, now for Jersey police on a freelance basis in the search for human remains at Haut de la Garenne) flew out to Portugal to help review case evidence. He was accompanied by his "advanced dog" Eddie. Up until then, corpse-detection dogs had only ever been used in this country to help the police to locate human remains. Eddie the dog reportedly reacted to Mrs McCann's clothing. Almost overnight, the McCanns turned from victims into suspects, and the crowds who had surrounded them in support began to boo and jeer at them in the street. Seemingly as a result of the dog's reactions, the Portuguese police made the McCanns official suspects.

However, the accuracy of sniffer dogs is hugely exaggerated in the popular consciousness. Even the courts in England and Wales appear to have taken the reliability of the dog for granted. In Devon in 1999, the police were called to a house because a slice of fruitcake had been stolen from it. The police attended with a dog. The dog sniffed around the kitchen area and then appeared to follow a track 100m away from the house. The dog stopped and indicated at an abandoned car, in which a homeless man was sleeping. No fruitcake crumbs were found on the man or in the car. The man was interviewed and denied involvement. He said he had been sleeping rough in a barn. It was cold and he had found the car unlocked. He was convicted on the basis of the dog indication and inferences from his decision not to give evidence in court.

..,

In fact, remarkably little is yet known about how the sense of smell works and there is a shocking shortage of reliable empirical research on the accuracy of detection dogs. The only substantial body of research was conducted in Australia. The Privacy Ombudsman of New South Wales reported its review on the use of drug-detection dogs to parliament in 2006. His research revealed that 74% of those searched following an indication by a dog were found not to be in possession of illegal drugs. This statistic adds weight to Justice Souter's statement that the "infallible dog" is a "legal fiction".

While many police dog handlers appear to hold a genuine belief in the "magic powers" of the dog (Russell Lee Ebersole was convicted of fraud for selling police officers in the US dogs said to be able to indicate which substances they were detecting by pointing their noses at letters of the alphabet), others are even more sanguine.
SOURCE: https://web.archive.org/web/2008040...Super-sniffer-dogs-or-canine-Clever-Hans.html

ORIGINAL / FULL ARTICLE: https://web.archive.org/web/2008040....co.uk/science/2008/mar/31/internationalcrime
 
This is the marvellous thing about dogs.

They tell you what you want to hear.

They are evolved to do that, after all.
 
This is the marvellous thing about dogs.

They tell you what you want to hear.

They are evolved to do that, after all.
'Woof' and 'grrrr' could mean anything.
 
Back
Top