Blood and the EVR dog - Part 3

01. Introduction

It’s said that in any creative process, like writing a book, painting a painting, the object gains a life that is independent of its creators. This series of posts shows this very clearly.

This was supposed to be a single post and is now in its third part and we inform readers that there will be six in total. Not 4, or 5 but 6. We are half-way.

When gets to the details, things need to be said and what appeared to be a simple and straightforward post, which was about the EVRD dog training quickly became apparent that it needed to be sub-divided, into blood and the EVRD training – with which we will deal today – and debunking the desensitising myth that some are trying to propagate.

Part 5 is planned to be about deployment and part 6 about Mr Thompson’s gigantic blunder.


02. Mistranslations

We will start by tackling the controversial sentence which is what was said by Martin Grime and that is in the PJFiles: “Eles localizam porém, e dão alerta para sangue seco de um humano com vida.”

This was initially published by JBLittlemore as proof that Eddie was also a blood dog. He published the translation of this phrase in the McCannPJFiles website which is “They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.”

We translated this phrase into “They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being.”

The difference between our and McCannPJFiles’ translations is not significant but it shows that there are currently 3 versions of the same phrase: in the original Portuguese (red), translated by the McCannPJFiles (magenta) and translated by us (blue).

This paragraph of the post does not intend to question the content of translation but to show how inadvertently translations can affect the original meaning of words.

We only have praise to express the absolute gratitude we have for all those who translated the files and to those who have set-up the McCannPJFiles where we can all see both the originals and translations of the entire files.

What a commendable huge amount of work! We recognise it as such and sincerely appreciate it and will forever be in debt.

And because it was huge, it’s natural and expected that it will contain mistakes. To point these mistakes out is to be helpful, to give constructive criticism and in no way does it alter our absolute recognition for all the hard work some people have put into this.

In 2008, those of us who were around the case at the time, those of us who were sharing the original CDs via Hotmail Messenger chat windows (only way to share such large files at the time) know exactly how much pressure was put on the people who were translating the files.

The fact that it has so few mistakes is an outstanding achievement in itself.

But let’s see how the passage from the where the controversial phrase comes from, shows how meanings can be altered with mistranslations.

We do not have the original in English, we only have the original in Portuguese from which the McCannPJFiles site translated into English.

“O cão EVRD também dá o alerta a pistas sanguíneas de um humano com vida ou somente de um cadáver?

O cão EVRD é treinado utilizando material completo e desagregado, sangue, tecidos ósseos, dentes, etc e contaminantes em decomposição. O cão reconhecerá ne integra ou ‘partes constituintes’ de um cadáver humano. Ele não é treinado para odores humanos ‘vivos’, nenhum cão treinado reconheceria o cheiro de ‘sangue fresco’. Eles localizam porém, e dão alerta para sangue seco de um humano com vida.”

This was translated by the McCannPJFiles into:

“'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'

The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.”

This is a translation of a translation and no matter how much JBLittlemore and friends have said otherwise, it doesn’t change that fact.

We translated the same passage into this:

“Does the EVRD dog also give alerts to blood leads from a human with life or just from a cadaver?

The EVRD dog is trained with complete and disaggregated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and crossed contaminants in decomposition. The dog will recognise in its entirety or ‘belonging parts’ of a human cadaver. He’s not trained for ‘live’ human odours, no trained dog would recognise the scent of ‘fresh blood’. They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being.”

Again, as is obvious, this is a translation of a translation and, spoil-alert, it contains a mistake.

Before we reveal that mistake, just from the 3 versions above as they are of the same passage we can see how people with the best faith in the world, with absolutely no intent to deceive, having only the intent to help spread what the files contained, have mistranslated the following:

- translated a question into a statement;

- translated “utilizando material completo e desagregado” into “using whole and disintegrated material” instead of “trained with complete and disaggregated material”;

- translated “Eles localizam porém” into “They find, however” instead of “They however locate”.

If the last mistranslation has, as we said, no significance the first and second ones do.

The first can confuse people into thinking that it was Martin Grime saying it when it wasn’t and in the second there’s a significant difference between “disintegrated” and “disaggregated”.

And to show how hard translating is, we, even when paying close attention to that particular passage and basically revising what had already been translated, made a mistake, we translated “contaminantes em decomposição” into “crossed contaminants in decomposition”.

Where did we come up with “crossed” from? From the McCannPJFiles’ translation and that is not an excuse as that translation was exactly what we were revising when we made the mistake.

So those critics who jumped on the chance to try and convey the idea that we were dissing the translators of the McCannPJFiles, must be aware that we are now dissing ourselves. Mistakes do happen and once detected, the intellectually honest correct them.

So, please add to the list of mistranslations above:

- translated “contaminantes em decomposição” into “crossed contaminants in decomposition” instead of “contaminants in decomposition”;

There are no crossed contaminants, just contaminants.

This passage shows how when relying on a translation to prove a point one should use caution.

If, as is said, the McCanns did spend £100K on translating the files via certified translators then that  would have been  a wise correct way to spend money, and in no way represents anything against the very good-willed, highly altruistic and exceptional volunteering McCannPJFiles translators but it’s easily understood that the McCanns needed a translation they could use legally.

For the effects intended in this post we will be using this translation (ours corrected) of the passage in question:

“Does the EVRD dog also give alerts to blood leads from a human with life or just from a cadaver?

The EVRD dog is trained with complete and disaggregated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and contaminants in decomposition. The dog will recognise in its entirety or ‘belonging parts’ of a human cadaver. He’s not trained for ‘live’ human odours, no trained dog would recognise the scent of ‘fresh blood’. They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being.”


03. The controversial sentence

So, it’s undeniable that in the PJFiles that Martin Grime appears to have said this: “They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being.”

Only Martin Grime can clarify if this is what he really said and if he did say it as is translated, why he said it.

We have to say that when read literally it doesn’t make sense and we will try and to explain why because for us it would seem to be a case for Grouxo Marx to say “who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” than anything else.

We can only find 2 explanations for this, mistranslation or generalization.

The first would be the result of an innocent mistranslation, obviously with no ill intent.

For example, and speculating, Grime could have said “they however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a human being”, with him meaning blood contaminated with cadaver compound, and the translator may have assumed that the word “however” after an adamant sentence stating clearly that Eddie was “not trained for ‘live’ human odours, no trained dog would recognise the scent of ‘fresh blood’” meant that what followed would be an alternative to this, that this “human dried blood” would be then, to highlight an exception, from a live person.

One just has to think. What is said literally does not make sense in practical terms.

If an EVRD doesn’t detect fresh blood but would detect dried blood then the only time they would not detect blood would be when the blood was flowing, literally, out of the human body because blood dries up pretty quickly. In all other circumstances they would detect blood.

As there are absolutely no circumstances in which an EVRD dog (or even a blood dog) is used when the blood is coming out of a live human being, why say the above if the situation described is one that, literally, NEVER happens? Why mention the fresh blood thing at all? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Read literally, then the EVRD dogs would detect blood in ALL their situations of deployment and if that was the case, then why not just say “EVRD dogs detects blood”?

That would make dogs like Eddie full cadaver AND blood dog, not just EVRD as per the title they bear publicly. The blood detection capability should be included in their identification. They should be called Enhanced Victim Recovery and Blood Dogs (EVRBD) and they are not. Why not, if they could detect blood in all circumstances? Because they don’t detect blood in all circumstances.

If they did, since blood dogs are known as Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) dogs then dogs like Eddie should be known as EVRCSI dogs: Enhanced Victim Recovery and Crime Scene Investigation dogs.

But as they then, according to the defenders of Eddie being a CSI & EVRD dog, any of his alerts would be questionable, then they should indeed be called GNPO dogs: Good for Nothing but for Photo Ops Dog.

The sentences “He’s not trained for ‘live’ human odours, no trained dog would recognise the scent of ‘fresh blood’” and “They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being” are oxymorons in terms of sentences, as they absolutely contradict each other.

However, and that is what we defend, if those sentences were instead “He’s not trained for ‘live’ human odours, no trained dog would recognise the scent of ‘fresh blood’” followed by “He however locates, and gives the alert to dried blood from a human being” then all would make sense and be a very accurate description as the blood referred to would be dead blood, blood contaminated with cadaver compound.

Note in the above we have not only taken out the word “live” but we also replaced the “they” for a “he” in the last sentence.

And it’s because when one reads the 2 sentences one sees that Grime speaks of Eddie in the singular “He’s” and then in the last sentence he speaks (?) of him in plural, “they”.

This change raises the possibility of the sentence having been correctly translated, the second possibility we have considered to have happened, generalisation.

Could Grime be resorting to generalisation of dogs and in that particular sentence he is talking about blood dogs?

That what he was trying to say was the EVRD dogs detect cadaver, that don’t detect ‘live’ scents and for that we have, they, the blood dogs. His reasoning would be that no trained EVRD dog would recognise the scent of ‘fresh blood’, however, blood dogs locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being.

We will leave it up to readers to judge which, if either of the 2 hypotheses is the one they think happened in that sentence but the fact is only Martin Grime can clarify what he did say in reality.

We are certain he has written down somewhere what he said originally and if he doesn’t he will certainly remember what he meant to say, maybe one day he will tell us.

We know our critics will hold on for dear life to the “They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being.” We expect that to happen and can only aspire to hope that they do explain to all of us how this phrase fits in (or doesn’t as we have shown) with the rest of the passage.

However, we won’t be sitting down waiting for that.


04. Eddie the Etcetera dog

But even if our critics hold tightly to that phrase until their knuckles go from white to translucent, that passage makes their entire argument collapse when this is said: “The EVRD dog is trained with complete and disaggregated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and contaminants in decomposition.”

Because, if we are to follow their reasoning then the EVRD dogs are not limited to cadaver scent (“complete and disaggregated material”) and blood but also to bone tissue, teeth and contaminants in decomposition. And “etc.”. As readers know, etcetera is used at the end of a list to indicate that further, similar items are included, because that list is too tedious or clichéd to give in full. But here as the list cannot be tedious or clichéd, the etcetera should have been detailed and it isn’t.

So, EVRD dogs are not only cadaver and blood but also bone tissue, teeth. etc. and contaminants in decomposition dogs. But is it all that all they supposedly alert to? No, according to our critics:

https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134602049562271745 
“J B Littlemore‏ @JBLittlemore
Vol. IX p. 2480 EVRD "'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and locate human remains AND BODY FLUIDS INCLUDING BLOOD in any environment or terrain." Martin Grime statement. So, as Syn said ... fluids with blood in as per Jersey etc. #Mccann (my caps)
12:26 AM - 1 Jun 2019”

So, if one says that because Eddie alerts to blood because he was trained for it, then one has to say that he also alerts to bone tissue, teeth and contaminants in decomposition and an undefined number of body fluids. Which? We don’t know. But if he alerts to blood then he must alert to them all, whatever their number.

Maybe these plural body fluids are part of the etcetera list. Maybe that’s exactly what kind of a dog Eddie is, according to our critics: an Etcetera dog!

What an amazing dog! Basically, he alerts to all!


05. Blood mixture

There are some who say that Eddie only alerts to various fluids when they are mixed with blood… but where is that written? It’s not.

If that was the case then shouldn’t that have been definitely highlighted by Martin Grime? Shouldn’t he have said “body fluids mixed with blood” instead of “body fluids including blood” that he did?

We see no reference or the tiniest implication of any mixture involving blood, just the statement that Eddie has been trained with body fluids, one of which – so there are others – is blood. No mixtures mentioned or implied and those who deny that are simply misinforming.

But here again, our detractors shoot their own feet. If a dog would only alert to a fluid when it’s mixed with blood then what in reality would that dog be alerting to? Blood and only blood.

Blood would be the substance releasing the scent triggering the dog’s nose and the fluid with which the blood was mixed up with would be the object being alerted to.

Let’s use nasal drainage as an example. Our detractors say that such a dog would detect nasal drainage if it had blood mixed in it. Would that make him a nasal drainage dog or a blood dog? A blood dog because the nasal drainage was contaminated with blood, the real substance he was alerting to. Object, nasal drainage; substance, blood. Very easy to understand, so even our detractors can.

But this understanding fascinatingly stops when we use the exact same reasoning. We will rewrite the above and will replace ‘nasal drainage’ for ‘blood’ and ‘blood’ for ‘cadaver compound’: such a dog would detect blood if it had cadaver compound mixed in it. Would that make him a blood dog or a cadaver compound dog? A cadaver compound dog because the blood was contaminated with cadaver compound, the real substance he was alerting to. Object, blood; substance, cadaver compound. Very easy to understand, even…

Nope, our detractors’ brains suddenly freeze and abruptly fail to understand what they easily understood before. Fascinating is this switch their brains must have to understand and not understand the exact same thing.


06. Training a dog for a typical crime scene

What is the human fluid most expected to be found in a crime scene where a human being has died or where is suspected a human being has died?

Blood.

That simple, that obvious and that evident.

What does that imply? That anyone who has a profession that requires being involved in such crime scenes, has to be prepared for and react to blood found there in all its forms, consistencies and constituencies.

Such a professional should be as prepared to find blood in such a crime scene as a student should be to find numbers in a math class. 

Before a dog handler enters such crime scene with his dogs, EVRD or blood, he must have them trained and certified to react to blood in whatever conditions it may present there.

In whatever state of decomposition, on whatever surfaces, independent if it’s live or dead blood or if it’s pure or mixed with other substances and/or fluids.

All hypotheses must be considered beforehand and he and his dogs must be prepared to respond to them all appropriately.

Does that mean a dog should be trained to detect blood under all circumstances?

A blood dog, yes, all other dogs, no.

All other dogs should only alert to blood if and only if that blood is mixed with the substance of their target scent.

To give an example, a dog trained to alert to shampoo, should be trained to not alert to blood without any shampoo in it. How does one determine that? By using blood without any shampoo in it as a negative control as part of the training. If the dog reacts to it, fails the test, if not, passes it.

Blood must be an integral part of the training of any dog deployed in the described crime scene, as negative control, to certify that the dog alerts only to the target substance.

After that if the dog consistently passes the test of not alerting to unmixed blood that means the dog is certified that when he reacts to blood, he’s not reacting to the blood but to the target substance that is mixed in that blood.

So and to be clear, to train a shampoo dog for deployment in a typical crime scene, blood is used. Uncontaminated blood in all its phases of decomposition as negative control. Also should be used as negative control, blood contaminated with all other substances expected to be found in a crime scene, except shampoo.

Blood with shampoo is used in training as positive control. Other positive controls would be with all other substances expected to be found in a crime scene, mixed with shampoo.

That way, the shampoo dog will be certified to alert to shampoo, mixed or on its own.

To train a shampoo dog for typical crimes scenes, blood is used. Does that mean that a shampoo dog alerts to blood? No. He alerts always to shampoo and only shampoo.

So, readers can now see that  when Martin Grime says blood is used to train the EVRD dog, that does not make Eddie a blood dog. The use of blood, a substance expected to be found in crime scenes,is mandatory in the training.

A certified EVRD dog, is trained to ONLY alert to cadaver scent wherever his nose is triggered by it. Be it in blood, be it in Cuddle-cats, be it in trousers, be it in t-shirts, be it in flowerbeds, be it closets, be it wherever.

So, Grime saying that “still born decomposing piglets” and “blood” were used in Eddie’s training makes total sense and that doesn’t make him a blood dog:

https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134603019490869249
J B Littlemore‏ @JBLittlemore
J B Littlemore Retweeted J B Littlemore
And in the next sentence MG said "The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and still born decomposing piglets." #Mccann
J B Littlemore added,
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1134602049562271745
12:30 AM - 1 Jun 2019”

About Eddie’s subsequent training, we will just quote Mark Harrison:

“An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee.”

“Human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater” and no mention about being trained to alert to blood.

07. Sets and sub-sets

Hopefully by now, readers can answer this question:

https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1141475566438236160 
 “Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
Replying to @ArataMylov
Yes you do [desensitise a dog to one particular element of the combination he's already learned]. How do you stop a cadaver dog alerting to stale urine, semen & faeces which all contain elements of human decomposition?
11:39 PM - 19 Jun 2019”

And the answer is simple, if urine, semen & faeces are contaminated by human decomposition, they will be alerted to by Eddie, just like blood and Cuddle-cats. If they aren’t, he will ignore them.

See how the Frog is being specious? Containing elements of human decomposition (namely cadaverine) isn’t the same as being contaminated by human decomposition.

For some reason we say that an EVRD dog alerts to cadaver compound and not to cadaverine.

Urine & semen contain cadaverine (faeces don’t as far as we know) when produced by a living human being, but are only contaminated by human decomposition, or cadaver compound, when that human ceases to be alive.

If having elements of human decomposition was the same as being contaminated with human decomposition, then EVRD dogs would be useless in all crimes committed near any toilet. Considering that possibility is just absurd.

This is the reason why Martin Grime speaks of “human blood as a sub-set of human decomposition” in his “Forensic Canine White Papers: A proof of concept foundational guide to the application of Forensic Canines within law enforcement investigations, research and training development”:

“4.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY –FORENSIC CANINE MISSION CAPABILITY

HUMAN REMAINS DETECTION DOGS (HRDD): Sometimes referred to as a Victim Recovery Dog (VRD), or Cadaver Dog, will SPECIFICALLY discriminate, and detect, human deceased victims, inclusive of dismembered parts, in all environments / contexts, on the surface, sub-surface, on land, and in water. The dogs should be trained to generalise the spectrum of decomposition process to allow for the investigation of recent death to cold case historical remains. This type of detection dog may detect human blood as a sub-set of human decomposition.
- Canines trained with the inclusion of animal remains (pig, pork) cannot be referred to as HRDD”

About sub-sets, we went to the website Math Goodies:

“Lesson on Subsets

Example 1: Given A = {1, 2, 4} and B = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, what is the relationship between these sets?

We say that A is a subset of B, since every element of A is also in B.”

It’s easy to understand that when decomposing inside a decomposing body, blood decomposition is a sub-set of the set that is the human decomposition of that body.

When released outside, when the body is not undergoing decomposition - when the human being is alive - each biological substance will undergo their unique decomposition process. Each decomposition is its own set, not a sub-set of anything.

When the substance is released from the inside of a cadaver, Eddie will alert to it. If released from a living human being, he won’t alert to any.

Keela will alert to blood in whatever state it is, independent of being dead or live blood.

08. Human blood in the EVRD training

As we have shown, because human blood is a highly likely fluid to be found in a crime scene, human blood should be used in the EVRD training:

“Drug dogs are trained on drugs, and cadaver dogs are trained on cadaver,” says Mary E. Cablk, a scientist at the Desert Research Institute in Nevada who studies scent detection. Training a cadaver dog requires regular contact with human blood, decaying flesh and bones. In the United States, dog handlers can legally obtain bodily components like human placenta and blood, but not always easily, and trainers like Cablk often resort to using their own blood. Some substitute commercially available ersatz odors (the most common is Sigma Pseudo Corpse Scent, which comes in three kinds: recently dead, decomposed and drowned). But deceased humans produce unique volatile organic compounds, and canines have a keenly attuned sense of smell, so you should practice on the real thing. “You don’t want to put other people at risk,” Cablk says — searches are often in dangerous areas, like collapsed buildings — “to find what is ultimately a dead pet.”

People who are currently desperate to diss Eddie by saying he’s also a blood dog will obviously pick from above “training a cadaver dog requires regular contact with human blood, decaying flesh and bones” but will not pick up “Drug dogs are trained on drugs, and cadaver dogs are trained on cadaver”.

No mention of cadaver dogs having been trained on blood. Drug dogs on drugs, cadaver on cadaver.

An EVRD dog is trained with blood and not on blood.

It’s clear from above that the trainer uses her own blood for training: “and trainers like Cablk often resort to using their own blood”.

Not being a cadaver herself, does she train her dogs with only live blood? Of course not, the answer of where she gets dead blood is very simple: she contaminates her live blood.

By mixing her own blood with whatever she has that she knows has cadaver compound, she will have dead blood.

Then she will have the 2 types of blood she needs for the training from her own blood: live and dead. Negative and positive controls on the reference object: blood.

This positive/negative control contamination is also applicable to all other bodily fluids that can be released by a dead human body. Any qualified trainer will know what “cadaver-fluids” s/he has to produce for the training of the EVRD dogs.


09. Conclusion

Blood is an integral part of an EVRD dog training. And it’s also an integral part of the lexicon used when speaking of EVRD dogs in their deployment, something we will analyse in detail in a later post.

That in no way means that an EVRD dog is also a blood dog. Blood is a mandatory instrument in their training not the target scent. That is very clearly one and only one: cadaver.

They are not trained first in blood and then upgraded to EVRD. They are trained only in cadaver.  

One just has to understand how, where and in what context the word ‘blood’ is used.

For example, once it’s clear that the context is cadaver scent alerting, when it’s said that teeth, blood and Cuddle-cats are alerted to, what in reality it is being said, because it is within an EVRD context, is that teeth contaminated with cadaver compound are alerted to, that blood contaminated with cadaver compound is alerted to, that Cuddle-cats contaminated with cadaver compound are alerted to.

Not that the EVRD dog is also a teeth, blood and Cuddle-cat dog.

Those who say he is a teeth, blood and Cuddle-cat dog (cannot mention one and leave the other out), are misleading on purpose. We all know that by now. For some reason they are reduced to either silence or to resorting to transparent vileness.