Blood and the EVR dog - Part 5

1. Introduction

We will start this post by informing our readers that this series has just gained another post. It will now be 7 parts.

This part was supposed to be about the deployment of the dogs. And that is what will, hopefully, be the topic of the next one.

But to fully understand how the dogs are deployed we have first to clarify the reliability of the dogs. We have already written a post specifically about it “The reliability of the cadaver dogs” which we recommend readers revisit.

The post and the debate that followed in the comments was very interesting and enlightening.

We are now returning to the topic because there are 2 things that we feel it’s opportune to clarify: how some are using an alleged high reliability of the dogs against them and the effective reliability the justice system gives them.

We also inform you that we will now be taking a Summer break. Meaning that the deployment post (part 6) and the one on Mr Thompson’s blunder (part 7) will be published when we have the time.

It might be before September, or it might not. We’re not teasing, just being sincere. With this post we feel we have done what we feel we could do before the new Prime-Minister is sworn in.

We hope that the “NotFrog effect” (which we will explain in part 7) that we have caused this far will be sufficient to stop what we saw coming, which was the archival of the case.

The fact that the tumbleweed is rolling on Twitter seems to show that the debate about whether Eddie is also a blood dog has almost been abandoned if not totally abandoned, and that tells us we have reached the objectives we proposed to achieve.

Even so, we wish to consolidate all so we will continue to write about it.

2. Very, very high efficiency/accuracy/reliability

Both the Rat and NotTextusa/Watcher say the dogs Eddie and Keela are very, very reliable.

The Rat says Eddie is 95% accurate:

From the Rat’s previously “allegedly reported” account (now conveniently closed), for which we don’t have screengrabs of the original tweets, only those above that are from our mailbox where we have stored the tweets of that account that we found of interest to the case:

(2 tweets):

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134822566839881730

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134823123231084546

“Ismail A Rat‏ @IsmailARat5

Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NancyParks8 and 49 others

not tasked with distinguishing one body from another, or screening their alerts by DNA or identity. They are tasked with finding otherwise indiscernible clues, traces of death. Police investigators, not dogs, do the rest.

The scientific efficacy of a well trained EVRD is around 95% and increasingly proposed as being potentially even higher. The performance of the broader forensic investigation they are an innate part of is another matter, and will often be required as a legal criteria to produce physical evidence affirmative to the dog alert, all of

3:04 PM - 1 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134830328076525569

“Ismail A Rat‏ @IsmailARat5

Replying to @NancyParks8 @scamhunter486 and 48 others

That’s the most meaningless nonsense of a statement you’ve made so far.

The dogs can be trained. Proven.

The dogs are depended on to save lives. Daily.

Their capabilities are recognised. Fact.

They are at least 95% accurate in their application when professionally trained.

3:33 PM - 1 Jun 2019”

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134830731887284225

Ismail A Rat‏ @IsmailARat5

“Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NancyParks8 and 49 others

What you consider “a perfect piece of evidence” has fuck all to do with anything. You haven’t established what that standard is, scientifically. And you’re clearly oblivious to the potency of a 95% accurate technique, or where that leads...

There’s an entire scientific

3:35 PM - 1 Jun 2019”

(2 tweets):

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134846904616046594

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134847189459591169

“Ismail A Rat‏ @IsmailARat5

Replying to @NancyParks8 @factsonly10x and 48 others

No, you actually don’t know that “those” dogs were not 100% correct. That’s literally something you’re going to have to live with never being able to verify.

But I’m all ears if you can provide me with a scientific and jurisprudential elaboration of the substantitive distinction between 95% accuracy and 100% accuracy, considering the number of locations searched and the number of alerts made?

Where does the 5% margin of error fall?

 4:40 PM - 1 Jun 2019”

NotTextusa/Warcher says that Keela is over 90% reliable:

“Keela was trained to alert to blood. Independent, peer-reviewed studies on similar dogs have found them to be very reliable with positive predictive values over 90%.”

Both the Rat and NotTextusa/Watcher characters rate the efficiency/accuracy/reliability of both dogs very, very high. Or do they?



3. Instilling doubt

No, of course not. Their whole objective is to undermine the dogs.

Again, we have to remind readers that the Rat will follow the truth as much as he can, that he will use the truth to lie, to create doubt.

So, in this context of truth-to-tell-a-lie, this sentence from him is fascinating:

“if you can provide me with a scientific and jurisprudential elaboration of the substantitive distinction between 95% accuracy and 100% accuracy, considering the number of locations searched and the number of alerts made?”

It is fascinating because even though it is 100% true (as we shall show), it is meant to deceive, to fool because it’s relying on the ignorance the majority of his readers have on how probabilities are calculated.

Probabilities and statistics is an entire scientific subject. We will be addressing those, who we believe to be in the majority, are not familiar with it at all. 

All will understand that a 95% reliability is high, we would even say is very high. But it’s not 100% because it leaves a margin of 5% error. That is a huge margin of error in legal terms. That is 1 in every 20 possibilities that Eddie may be wrong. The subconscious captures this and that means doubt settles in. Not intentionally, it just does.

Above, when the Rat speaks, he’s not talking to the reader but to the reader’s subconscious.

His mouth will be saying, oh, Eddie is very, very trustworthy, no question about it but  at the same time he knows the reader’s subconscious will be saying, wait a minute, a 5% error cannot be discarded…

The Rat does say “considering the number of locations searched and the number of alerts made” but the general reader does not know how to calculate mentally what this means exactly.

The reader will also not have memorised exactly how many alerts there were. There were 7 alerts: living-room, bedroom, flowerbed, Cuddle-cat, trousers, t-shirt. Key fob/Scenic door (let’s consider these as a single alert).

We would say that a reader familiar with the case would estimate off the cuff that there were between 5 and 7 alerts.

Not being familiar with how to calculate probabilities, the reader will make quick erroneous estimations like adding a 1% to the reliability with each of the alerts.

For the reader, if Eddie had alerted 5 times, the reader would say his accuracy would be raised to around 99% or even 99.5%, just by taking into account his 95% accuracy record alleged by the Rat.

Basically, the reader will think that there’s a possibility of him having being wrong in 1 in 200 times. Or even 1 in 1,000 times. Or even 1 in 10,000 times.

The point is, the reader will now assume that there’s a REAL possibility, however small, of Eddie having been wrong and that will work in the back of the reader’s mind.

Those 5% instilled by the Rat in the reader’s mind will niggle away in the reader’s brain and do the job the Rat wants it to do: instil doubt.

This is the reason why NotTextusa/Watcher after stating how reliable he thinks Keela is (over 90%, he said) he says this: “However, in the absence of confirmatory evidence, no-one can say for certain what Keela alerted to and anyone who claims otherwise is lying to you.”

If NotTextusa/Watcher was so certain of Keela’s reliability, then for sure he wouldn’t hesitate a minute to reassure all that Keela had alerted to blood but instead he says whoever says that is lying.

So what is the high reliability good for? Absolutely nothing because as long as it leaves a margin of error, error is possible.

NotTextusa/Watcher says Keela is over 90% accurate it’s blood but uses the 10% of possible error to drive in that even with that high percentage, no one can guarantee that it was blood.

The reader can now see how being over 90% reliable means absolutely nothing, it is only stated to highlight the possibility of an around 10% possibility of error.

Has the reader noticed how with only all this talk, the reader’s mind has abandoned the possibility of the dogs being 100% reliable? The reader no longer considers that a possibility. Fascinating how easy it is to cast doubt in one’s mind, isn’t it?

For NotTextusa/Watcher that 10% of alleged unreliability, and for the Rat that 5% are precious and they are using them to their advantage.

Their mouths do say the dogs are reliable but in reality their words mean the exact opposite.

So, one day, somewhere upstream in time, if and when Eddie’s reliability comes into play, the reader instead of replying to an allegation that Eddie may have gotten things wrong, with an immediate and straightforward “get out of here”, the reader will hesitate for a micro-second and that micro-second will be sufficient to create doubt.

And once that is achieved, even though the Rat and NotTextusa/Watcher characters attack from different angles, they will have reached the exact same goal successfully.

Like in war, the fact that they are fighting under different banners does not mean they are not fighting for the same alliance.



4. Probabilities and Eddie

Let’s then see what the probabilities referred to by the Rat and NotTextusa/Watcher really mean. Let’s do the maths they are betting no reader will go into the trouble of doing.

We all have a general notion of probability because of the 50%/50% notion we all have of simple and straightforward odds like the flip of a coin. It’s either heads or tails, a 50% chance of being one and 50% of being the other.

Here, without noticing, the reader has come to one of the most important conclusions about probabilities, and that is whatever possibilities may occur, the addition of all of them must be 100%. Heads, 50%, tails, 50%, total of possibilities, 100%.

When it’s said that something has a chance of 1 in a million of occurring, it’s being simultaneously said that it has the chance of 1 in 999,999 of not occurring. Probabilities always have to have the context of the 100%, all possibilities that may happen.

We are also familiar with lotteries where the odds are 1 in millions. To facilitate, the calculus in probabilities is done in decimals.

There’s a 0.5 chance to be heads and 0.5 to be tails. This means, as explained above, that all possible probabilities for an event to happen has to be 1, or 100%.

0.5 probability of heads + 0.5 probability of tails = 0.5 + 0.5 = 1

There’s no other possible outcome for the toss of a coin. All possible probabilities of occurrences happening are expressed above.

The complexity arises when one is speaking about composite probabilities. For example, the probability of flipping 2 coins and getting heads on them both.

It’s not an addition of probabilities, because if one adds up 0.5 of the probability of one coin being heads with the 0.5 probability of the other coin being also heads, one would get a 1 or 100% and that one knows right away is not right because there are all the other possibilities that may happen.

Because we are looking at a simple example, we can lay out all the possible outcomes of the toss of the 2 coins (H – heads, T – tails):

HH or HT or TH or TT

Immediately one can see that it’s a chance of 1 in 4 which is 25%, or in decimals 0.25 of the result being both coins with heads.

Mathematically it’s represented by a multiplication: 0.5 probability of heads for coin 1 x 0.5 probability of heads for coin 2 = 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25.

25% of chance that if 2 coins are flipped there will be a heads-heads result. 75% or 0.75 is the chance that will not happen.

So, if we had a third coin and ask the reader what are the chances of getting a heads-heads-heads flip the answer is very quickly calculated:

0.5 probability of heads for coin 1 x 0.5 probability of heads for coin 2 x 0.5 probability of heads for coin 3 = 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.125 or 12.5%. Meaning that there is an 87.5% or 0.875 chance of that not happening.

Continuing one can see that for a 4 head coin toss the probability is 0.0625 (6.25%) and for a 5 head one is 0.03125 (3.125%).

How much is the reader willing to bet on a 6-coin heads toss? It’s up to the reader but now the reader knows that the probability of losing money will be that of 0.984375 or 98.4375%.

Where does this link up with the Maddie case? The probability the Rat says there is that an EVR dog is correct: 95%. We will analyse this number later but let’s assume that it’s true. This means that Eddie would have a probability of 5% of being wrong, or 0.05.

Let’s now calculate the odds of Eddie having given 7 false alerts: living-room, bed-room, flowerbed, Cuddle-cat, trousers, t-shirt. Key fob/Scenic door (let’s consider this only one).

0.05 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.05 x 0.05 = 0.0000000008. That is 0.00000008%.

We are talking of chances of 1 in trillions. That is a 100% legal certainty, no ifs or buts about it.

So, after calculating, is it reasonable to question the fact that Eddie did in fact alert to cadaver 7 times, even when considering that he may have “only” a 95% probability of being right? No, not at all.

It’s evident that he did alert 100% to cadaver just as the Portuguese justice system decided he did.

Let’s now read the Rat’s statement again: “if you can provide me with a scientific and jurisprudential elaboration of the substantitive distinction between 95% accuracy and 100% accuracy, considering the number of locations searched and the number of alerts made?”

Now that the reader has seen the calculation the reader NOW concurs that there’s “no substantitive distinction between 95% accuracy and 100% accuracy, considering the number of locations searched and the number of alerts made” (so, like we said that statement is 100% true) but before we showed them to the reader, did the reader have that perception? No, the reader did not have that perception.

We will repeat what we said above about this exact same sentence from the Rat: “It is fascinating because even though it is 100% true (as we shall show), it is meant to deceive, to fool because it’s relying on the ignorance the majority of his readers have on how probabilities are calculated”.

The Rat has bet that when readers read him, that 5% of doubt will dive deep in the back of their minds to pop up whenever Eddie’s reliability is mentioned.

The Rat’s uses a true statement to cast doubt, and he has done that very efficiently.



5. Where does the 95% comes from?

Let’s see from where both NotTextusa/Watcher and the Rat got their numbers from.

Although NotTextusa/Watcher, as usual doesn’t say what “independent, peer-reviewed studies on similar dog” he speaks about, we think we were able to determine where he got that number from and we’ll show it later in the post when we speak of a Michigan court decision.

As we’ll see, he alters subtly what is said with pseudo-scientific verbiage with the aim to fool.

We’ll focus on the Rat as he’s the one speaking about Eddie. He has backed his 95% claim with this tweet:

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134824043784343552
“Ismail A Rat‏ @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NancyParks8 and 49 others
And that one comes with a cherry on top...
https://www.syracuse.com/news/2014/07/expert_well-trained_cadaver_dogs_95_percent_accurate_can_smell_remains_15_feet_d.html
3:08 PM - 1 Jun 2019”

Not exactly a scientific study.

Says the article:

“Experts: Cadaver dogs 95 percent accurate, can smell remains 15 feet underground

Posted Jul 30, 2014

By John O'Brien | jobrien@syracuse.com

MEXICO, N.Y. -- A well-trained cadaver dog almost never gets it wrong, according to experts.

If the dog has the proper training in picking up the full range of scents of human decomposition, his accuracy rate is about 95 percent, said Sharon Ward, a cadaver dog trainer in Portland, Ore.

"So if a dog says it's there, there's a darn good chance it is," she said tonight. "They're pretty darn accurate."

(…)

"The handler, especially a state police handler, should know if a dog lies to him or not," said Ward, a trainer with Pacific Crest Search Dogs, a nonprofit that uses the dogs to find human remains in Oregon and the state of Washington.

Depending on the type of soil, its aeration and the presence of tree roots in the ground, a cadaver dog can pick up the scent of remains deep underground, Ward said. She cited a case where police asked her if her three cadaver dogs could pick up a scent of remains 30 feet deep.

"I said, 'I have no idea. I've never trained on that, but I'll try,'" she said.

All three dogs put their noses in the same area and alerted, she said. She told the police to bring in a bulldozer, and they found a body 15 feet down, Ward said.

Cadaver dogs are trained to not alert on dead animals in the area -- only human remains, she said.

"In my yard, I have a cow bone and and elk bone out," she said. "If my dog hits on one of those, he's in trouble."

How old can the skeletal remains be? Hundreds of years, said Cat Warren, a cadaver dog expert from North Carolina who published a book, "What the Dog Knows: The Science and Wonder of Working Dogs."

But she and Ward both warned that the dogs are like people. They do make mistakes sometimes.

"The dogs are not magic," Warren said. "It depends on their training."”

We see no scientific basis for the 95% claim. In fact “darn good chance it is” and “pretty darn accurate” are not exactly scientific statistical measures.

It seems to us that when Sharon Ward says that a handler “should know if a dog lies to him or not”  and “if my dog hits on one of those [cow bone and elk bone], he's in trouble”, tells us that her dogs have lied to her and have hit “on one of those” some of the times, thus her hunch of 95% because, it seems Ward’s dogs “do make mistakes sometimes.”

The 95% appears to be more a gut-feeling than the result of any scientific study.

There is one very important detail about Ward’s dogs as far as we can read: they have not been trained to be used in court and their job is to find remains. We will return to this later but one just has to imagine what a field day the pros would have if Martin Grime had ever said that a handler “should know if a dog lies to him or not” or if about Eddie or Keela that they “do make mistakes sometimes”. He didn’t, as we know.

The point is that neither the Rat nor NotTextusa/Watcher have presented a reliable source to justify the reliability of their numbers.

The Rat has also in no way linked this 95% from an article linked with the reliability of EVR dogs as a whole and much less how it is linked to Eddie that was brought in to search specifically in the world’s highest profile case at the time.



6. False negatives

We have said that we believe that the forensic dogs, Eddie and Keela are 100% reliable. And the reason we say that boils down to 1 word: ‘false’.

That is the word that makes the dogs’ alerts 100% reliable.

There are 2 circumstances in which the word ‘false’ is used within the context of dog alerts: false negatives and false positives.

Because one can only state that something is false when one knows what is true, the only way to know if a dog gives false alerts is to know what is there to be alerted to.

To know that the dog gives a false negative the handler has to know the sample presented to him contains the substance he’s supposed to alert to and likewise to know that the dog gives a false positive, the handler must know exactly what substance is contained in the sample and which the dog should not have alerted to.

Bottom line, the handler controls the samples. That doesn’t happen in crime scenes. When a handler takes a dog into a crime scene no one knows what will be there to be found or be alerted to.

For example, if we were to ask how many false negatives did Eddie or Keela alerted to in apartment 5A, the answer is that no one knows.

In our post “Cadaverine” we explained that there had to be an intermediate location, which we called X,  between the 2 locations, A and B in the picture, where Eddie alerted to.

He alerted in the living-room where we believe Maddie died and also in the bedroom where we believe Maddie was put ready to be taken out of the apartment after having been cleaned, at least minimally, and redressed.

In between these 2 locations, there had to have been that location X where she had to have been cleaned and redressed. Eddie did not alert to that location.

Was it a false negative in terms of the source being there but in such a minute quantity that it didn’t release the required concentration of airborne molecules to trigger his nose?

Was it because whoever cleaned and redressed Maddie unwittingly made the location impermeable and so nothing was contaminated and so Eddie could not possibly alert to it and not a false negative?

No one knows, not even those who we believe handled the body that evening. The fact is we don’t know how many false negatives Eddie gave at that moment, indeed if any.

No one can state he did, no one can state he didn’t and that is the point. Unless one controls the samples, false negatives cannot be determined and much less registered.

All false negatives can only be known during the phases of training, certification and confirmation of certification.

The dog runs through a track where there are true and false samples.

A false negative is when the dog does not alert to a true sample.

It will be statistically relevant in determining the dog’s sensitivity but absolutely irrelevant in terms of it compromising the dog’s efficiency record because in no way it invalidates what really matters: when he alerts, it’s 100% the scent he was trained to alert for.

Not as Sharon Ward said that “there's a darn good chance it is”. It is there with 100% certainty, full stop, nothing darned about it.

In fact, arguing against the dogs using false negative mistakes is a very stupid thing to do. The less sensitive is a dog’s nose, the greater the certainty is there about any alert he gives.

The less sensitive the nose is, the greater the concentration of scent he needs to alert. The greater the concentration, the greater the certainty of its presence.



7. False positives

But of course, the most damning for the dog’s credibility are the other ‘falses’ which are the false positives.

Any dog that has false positives on his record is not reliable. In court if there were any doubts about whether a dog was lying to the handler or not, if it hits on cow or elk bone instead of human remains, the dog’s reaction would not be admissible for obvious reasons.

Like with the false negatives, the false positives can only be determined previously in the training, certification and confirmation of certification phases.

If a dog during his training, certification and confirmation of certifications gives a false positive he should be taken off the program if in training, or have his certification immediately removed if after it.

What does this mean? It means that no dog is taken into a crime scene without having a perfect record on false positives, which is none. He has to have at that moment a 100% record reliability, no false positives whatsoever

Any false positive registered on his record would compromise the reliability of his evidence before he started his mission on the crime scene.

So when a handler speaks of mistakes of a dog he deploys he can only be referring to false negatives, which are irrelevant, and never to false positives.

That means every single alert he gives is 100% reliable (no false negatives) even though there’s the possibility, however small, that he may not alert to all that was there to alert to (possible false negatives).

A dog may be 95% reliable if one counts in the possibility of false negatives or in alerting all there is to alert to but, and that is what matters, his alerts are 100% accurate.

And we remind readers where Rat’s 95% number comes from: dogs that clearly were not trained to have their evidence presented in court.



8. Appealing dog evidence

Fortunately, as the Rat says, dog evidence is being more and more accepted in courts:

https://twitter.com/IsmailARat5/status/1134823716884492289
“Ismail A Rat‏ @IsmailARat5
Replying to @IsmailARat5 @NancyParks8 and 49 others
You’re welcome.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2014/10/21/47532/cadaver-dog-work-more-accepted-by-cops-courts/
3:07 PM - 1 Jun 2019”

Recently, this June, we had one case that not only the dog evidence was accepted and helped reach a conviction but that the admissibility of that dog evidence was appealed by the defendant.

It’s one step further as this goes beyond the discussion of whether the evidence should be accepted or not but moves all up a notch, of it being appealed by the defendants for having been accepted in a trial.

And, spoiler-alert, the appeal was overruled.

This happened in the case of Braulio M Castillo, sentenced for the murder of his wife Michelle Castillo.

But the best surprise in this case is that it involves Martin Grime and Keela. In this crime the EVR dog used was Morse, Eddie’s successor:

“The case also featured testimony by a cadaver dog handler that was used to argue that the death had actually occurred in an upstairs bedroom—a legally ground-breaking approach in Virginia.

“The opinion is a significant one for the Commonwealth,” said Chief Deputy Commonwealth’s Attorney Nicole Wittmann, who was the lead trial attorney.  “The Court was very thorough in its analysis, addressing each issue of appeal. Additionally, of particular significance was that the evidence related to the cadaver dog, an issue of first impression in Virginia, was found to be proper and admissible.”

The dog handler, Martin Grime, was hired by the FBI to come to America and help establish a cadaver dog program.  He brought his two dogs, Morse the cadaver dog, and Keela the blood detection dog, to the Castillo home 17 days after the body was located. Morse alerted to the basement bathroom where the body was found, and also to the foot of her bed in the master bedroom.

In a statement to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office following the appeal, Grimes said prosecutors’ “support for our search philosophy and strategy ensured that all relevant forensic intelligence was secured and helped solve the case. It is that sort of forward thinking and acceptance of science and support of research that makes your team a cut above the rest.””



9. “Dried blood”

The decision for the appeal can be read here and here.

We will start the analysis of this document by going directly to where in the document something is said that apparently contradicts all we have said this far:

“Morse, commonly referred to as a “cadaver dog,” was trained to alert to the odor of human decomposition and large quantities of dried blood; Keela, the second dog, was trained to detect the odor of smaller quantities of dried blood” and “a cadaver dog trained to alert to the odor of human decomposition and dried blood alerted to an area in the victim’s bedroom, as well to the bathroom where her body was found.”

Just reading the above, without knowing any context one has to ask… why would one need a dog to alert to “large quantities of dried blood”? Wouldn’t large quantities of dry blood be visible to the human eye?

Then, how does one train a dog to detect large quantities but not small? Isn’t the scent exactly the same? At what point does a small quantity become a large amount?

But it is factual that a US judge has written that in one of her decisions and as we are certain that she had no ill-intent one can only assume that she wrote what she wrote based on genuine conviction.

There are 2 words that we would say are the reason for her conviction: “dried blood”. She uses the expression in both sentences.

We have only seen the expression “dried blood” connected to EVR dogs in 1 document and that is the PJFiles. In the infamous translation of a translation where Martin Grime appears to have said, “Eles localizam porém, e dão o alerta para sangue seco de um humano com vida” which translates into “They however locate, and give the alert to dried blood from a live human being”.

We dealt with specifically with this sentence in the heading “03. The controversial sentence” of our post “Blood and the EVR dog – Part 3”.

Other than in this particular sentence, in this particular document from the PJ Files, we have never seen elsewhere the expression “dried blood” associated to Eddie or any other EVR dog.

It’s obvious that any blood alerted to by any dog will be dried up, so why mention that it dried?

We will see, in the decision to the appeal that Morse’s (the EVR dog) capabilities are mentioned by dog experts and not once do they say that he alerts to blood.

However, in this particular case Keela was also used and did alert to blood. The fact that Keela alerted to this scent and Eddie didn’t is what we think to be the reason why the judge wrote the above.

Later we will transcribe the details of the dog alerts but for now it’s best that it’s understood that Keela alerted menstrual blood in pants in an underwear drawer and Morse did not alert to them.

What we believe happened is that this Appeal judge when doing her research about EVR dogs to help him form her decision, she looked up the PJ Files and came across that controversial sentence.

To those thinking that it would be surprising for a US judge to look up the PJ Files, we welcome them to planet Earth. Maddie is a global case and the dogs, more specifically the cadaver dog, are right on its centre stage.

Reading that sentence, the judge like many others did before we started to tackle this issue, assumed that Eddie was also a blood dog.

But in front of her she had a case where the EVR dog in his supposed “blood-mode” failed to alert to something to which the blood dog did.

Under the conviction that Eddie also alerted “to dried blood from a live human being”, the judge, absolutely convinced of how the dogs were reliable, found only one explanation for the EVR dog’s supposed false negative: Keela’s nose had to have a greater sensitivity than that of Morse’s.

So she concluded that Morse would only be able to alert to blood when there was a significant amount and Keela would be able to detect smaller quantities, those that Morse would miss. To her, that had to be the only explanation for Morse’s false negative in his supposed “blood-mode” .

Being under the same conviction that Morse was also a blood dog as we believe the judge was, this reasoning is the only possible explanation to the conundrum.

The reason Morse did not alert to those pants is simple: he’s not a blood dog.

Morse did not alert to the pants because menstrual blood is not dead blood, it’s not human cadaveric blood. It’s live blood because when it exited the body it came from a living human being and was not contaminated with any human decomposition, the only circumstance Morse, the EVR dog, would alert to it.

Another way “dried blood” could have come to the judge could have been indirectly, via the appellants. In one of the footnotes in her decision the judge says:

“Appellant further contends that the admission of the cadaver dog evidence invited jury confusion and speculation because it was just as likely, if not more likely, that the dog falsely alerted, alerted due to the presence of menstrual blood, alerted to an odor transferred from the basement, or alerted to a source existing prior to March 19 or to a source created after March 20. However, appellant was given the opportunity to cross-examine, and did cross-examine, both experts on the variables that could produce a cadaver dog’s alert. The arguments relating to the likelihood that the dog falsely alerted or alerted to a presence other than the victim’s body went only to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”

The reference that Morse is also a blood dog is clearly made by the appellant.

So, it could have been a reference to the PJ Files made by the appellant that forced the judge to make a distinction between Morse and Keela regarding alleged blood alerting capabilities, more specifically the quantity there had to be present.

Regardless of having been directly (her going to the files) or indirectly (via appellant), the point is that as recently as June this year a US judge was under the absolute conviction that Morse, an EVR dog was also a blood dog.

We say that conviction could only have come from the controversial sentence from the PJFiles.

If a judge in the US was, or probably still is absolutely convinced that EVR dogs are also blood dogs to the point of writing it down in one of her decisions, then how easy it would be to convince other people that it is true? Very, very easy and a convincing that has subtly taken place right before our eyes all these years.

That’s why the other side held on to this “open secret” for 12 years. They wanted to play it when the critical and deciding times came.

And the critical and deciding times had arrived as the Rat’s appearance on scene at the beginning of April shows very clearly.

Those words from the American judge on her ruling, show how absolutely convinced she was that Morse was also a blood dog, and demonstrate that if there was no one to fight in Maddie’s corner, the other side would have easily pulled it off that after all Eddie only had alerted to blood in the Scenic and that blood could have come from a live Maddie.

If they have been pulling off that 15 out of 19 alleles is DNA not related to Maddie, this would be a walk in the park.

The gang was all poised to help convince people to be as convinced as that US judge.

In fact they were set-up on the internet to make sure no one fought in Maddie’s corner. Reader’s have witnessed the uphill battle we have fought.

Hopefully, readers will start to see the magnitude of Mr Thompson’s blunder and the reason why he’s been sent to exile.

The case may be archived and this trump card may even be played but at least our consciences are clear, we have done what we could, we have done our part. 



10. The alerts in the Castillo case

Let’s now look at the details of the alerts in this particular crime scene:

“Law enforcement officers arrived at the residence and searched the basement, where they discovered the victim hanging from a shower head in a bathroom. The victim was wearing a sweatshirt.

(…)

DiAngelo testified that she found two ligature marks on the victim’s neck: a deeper, horizontal mark that was consistent with strangulation at the time of death, and a more shallow mark with a different orientation which was consistent with the victim being hung in the shower after death.

The Virginia Department of Forensic Science analyzed bloodstains found on the victim’s bed linens and the sweatshirt she was wearing and identified the presence of appellant’s DNA.

(…)

Two victim recovery dogs were deployed inside the victim’s home seventeen days after her death. (…) Morse immediately alerted to the basement bathroom where the victim’s body was found and later alerted to a carpeted area at the base of the victim’s bed. Keela was “detailed” to the carpeted area where Morse had alerted, but she did not alert. She only alerted to the victim’s underwear drawer.

(…)

Also, appellant’s DNA was identified from bloodstains found in the victim’s bedroom and on the victim’s sweatshirt, after appellant had been barred from the residence pursuant to a protective order for over a year.”

(…)

Regarding the search of the victim’s residence, which occurred on April 4, 2014, Stockham testified that he directed the search with Morse and Keela. Grime was the dogs’ handler. Stockham was told that the victim had been found hanging in a bathroom, but that investigators thought that the body previously had been “stashed” somewhere else in the house. The investigators did not tell Stockham where the body had been previously in the house. Stockham only told Grime that they had been asked to assist in a homicide case, and simply instructed him to “come in and run your dog.”

When Morse entered the house, he was given a command to search. Without being directed toward the basement, Morse “broke” and went to that part of the home and alerted to the bathroom in the basement. This conduct indicated to Stockham that there was “enough odor [there] that it drew [Morse] in from that distance.” While searching the rest of the home, Morse alerted to the area at the foot of the victim’s bed. Stockham testified that Morse would alert where he smelled the highest concentration of odor [16].

[16] Keela only alerted to the victim’s underwear drawer. Stockham noted that if there was menstrual blood on the underwear, Keela would alert to that, so he concluded that the alert on the drawer was “inconsequential.””

This is one of those crime scenes where no blood was expected to be found, as it was death by strangulation.

However, the authorities determined that blood had been found in 3 locations: sweatshirt, bed linen and underwear drawer.

It is only mentioned that blood from the appellant was found in the first 2, bed-linens and sweatshirt.

We can only imagine that in both the blood stains were visible and the items in question had been removed prior the dogs having entered the premises.

The only blood alert was that by Keela to the underwear drawer and was considered “inconsequential” because it was evidently unrelated to the crime.

But it proves that Morse is not a blood dog at all.

And it proves something else. It proves wrong those saying that Keela’s role as a blood dog is to confirm blood where the EVR dog alerted. If she alerts, then it’s blood, if she doesn’t it’s cadaver.

Morse did not alert to that drawer.



11. Training and reliability, in court

About the dog’s training and reliability:

“Stockham stated that cadaver dogs are trained to alert to the odor of decomposing human material and that they can alert to trace amounts and residual odors rather than physical substances [14]. Stockham testified that the odor of human decomposition is “[v]ery” persistent over time.

[14] Stockham acknowledged on cross-examination that scientists do not know what specific chemicals comprise the odor of decomposition to which the dogs alert.

(…)

Stockham had directed hundreds of crime scenes using cadaver dogs.

Stockham testified that the FBI had established a scientific working group, consisting of members of the academic community, the canine industry, and various international partners, to develop cadaver dog best practice certification assessment guidelines. He stated that all of the dogs in the FBI program met these guidelines and were required to pass an annual proficiency certification assessment. They were also given routine maintenance training to ensure that they maintained their skills. Stockham testified that some cadaver dogs failed out of the program because they were not proficient.

Stockham explained that the first dog used in this case, Morse, was part of the FBI program and had come to the program already trained. He assessed Morse as “[v]ery proficient” prior to the search of the victim’s home. Morse, he noted, did not “make a lot of mistakes.” Keela, the second dog used in the search, was a human blood detection dog that was trained to detect the odor of human blood, but not its residual odor. Stockham testified that her proficiency was “exceptional.” Stockham had never witnessed a situation involving Morse or Keela in which their handler, Grime, was able to cue them to alert to something that was not there.

(…)

He explained that Morse was first trained using scent pads which had been applied to corpses. Morse was then trained in “operational” scenarios, including training using known graves. At the time of the search of the victim’s home, Morse was certified by the FBI as a proficient cadaver dog. Grime testified that while proficiency certifications occurred annually, Stockham also conducted occasional “surprise proficiency test[s].” Morse had never failed a proficiency test conducted by the FBI at the time the victim’s home was searched.

The Commonwealth introduced into evidence Morse’s training records and his 2014 FBI certification. The records reflected that Morse participated in several training exercises from February 2014 through April 2014, all with “excellent” or “[v][ery] good” proficiency ratings. The search in this case was conducted on April 4, 2014. His yearly assessment, conducted on January 23, 2014, reflected that Morse was “very experienced” and “trusted.”

(…)

He later clarified on re-direct that he did not know what combination of chemicals the dog was relying on to give the alert, but that the dog was trained to find the odor of human decomposition.”

Nothing about Morse detecting human blood: “Stockham stated that cadaver dogs are trained to alert to the odor of decomposing human material” and “but that the dog was trained to find the odor of human decomposition”. Would alerting to blood have been mentioned? Of course it would.

Alerting to blood was a topic that was not overlooked:

“Keela, the second dog used in the search, was a human blood detection dog that was trained to detect the odor of human blood, but not its residual odor.”

Note that it goes into the detail that Keela does not detect residual odour of blood. So, if Morse detected blood scent, it had to have been mentioned. It isn’t because Morse does not detect blood scent and as we will see later in the post, the dog experts Stockham and Grime were cross-examined by the defence during the trial.

The defendants who were now appealing the admissibility of the dog evidence “forgot” during the trial to cross-examine the experts with questions on whether Morse also alerted to blood, and if he did, under what circumstances.

Why? Because they knew better than to do that. If they asked, they would get a confirmation but if they didn’t the “myth” could continue to be milked as it was as we’ll later see.

About the continuous confirmation of certification that the dogs are always subjected to, the above transcribed corroborates what we have already stated:

“He explained that Morse was first trained using scent pads which had been applied to corpses. Morse was then trained in “operational” scenarios, including training using known graves. At the time of the search of the victim’s home, Morse was certified by the FBI as a proficient cadaver dog. Grime testified that while proficiency certifications occurred annually, Stockham also conducted occasional “surprise proficiency test[s].” Morse had never failed a proficiency test conducted by the FBI at the time the victim’s home was searched.

The Commonwealth introduced into evidence Morse’s training records and his 2014 FBI certification. The records reflected that Morse participated in several training exercises from February 2014 through April 2014, all with “excellent” or “[v][ery] good” proficiency ratings. The search in this case was conducted on April 4, 2014. His yearly assessment, conducted on January 23, 2014, reflected that Morse was “very experienced” and “trusted.””

And we can only assume that when it’s said “Morse, he noted, did not “make a lot of mistakes.”” it is referring to false negatives and not false positives.

The detail in which all is mentioned, if there had been any false positives, the expert would have had to state in court when such false positive(s) happened, to what scent the dog had erroneously alerted to then and fundamentally explain why the experts would have considered it/them inconsequential.

As we have said, a false positive would seriously undermine the dogs’ credibility and we are absolutely certain that if there had been even a single one, the defense would have explored that in the cross-examination.

The “mistakes” mentioned are clearly only false negatives.

It seems that Keela’s proficiency of “exceptional” meant that she had very, very few (if any) false negatives as the alert in the underwear drawer demonstrated.



12. Cadaver scent contamination, in court

About cadaver scent contamination:

“Both Stockham and Grime were questioned about the possibility of odor transference—meaning whether the odor of human decomposition could be transferred from its source to another object by contact, and then further transferred to additional objects by contact. Stockham testified that the odor of human decomposition can be transferred from a cadaver to clothing or to a person handling a body. He acknowledged that he wrote in his incident report from the search that human decomposition odor may be present in or on items associated with daily living, and as such, the dog’s positive final responses may or may not have significance. When asked whether it was possible that Morse’s alert at the foot of the victim’s bed “came from activities of daily living,” Stockham stated, “I don’t know what the alert was from.” He later clarified on re-direct that he did not know what combination of chemicals the dog was relying on to give the alert, but that the dog was trained to find the odor of human decomposition. Grime testified that transference of human decomposition odor, either directly or indirectly, happens “quite easily and readily.” He opined that such transference was unlikely in this case because Morse only alerted in two locations; if the transference of odor had been caused by individuals moving through the house, the dog would have responded in more places.”

If it’s all gaseous, then how can transference of human decomposition be done DIRECTLY?

About being indirectly we have explained how and why in our post “Cadaver compound”:

If it was all gaseous then taking into account that evidently individuals did move through the house, why were there no more responses in more places other than only 2?

The fact that there were only 2 locations alerted does not mean that individuals did not move through the house but simply that in that movement there was no contamination.  By touching. By physical contact.

Anyone who had touched the body, thus becoming contaminated, had not touched any other surface and so did not contaminate them when they moved around.

As we have said, molecules are not Lara Crofts or MacGyvers. They don’t swing on microscopic ropes, attaching themselves to all surfaces they pass nearby but don’t come in contact with. 

What an uncanny similarity with what happened in 5A!



13. Motion against dog evidence denied

“Following the hearing on the matter, the trial court issued an order denying appellant’s motion to bar evidence of blood and cadaver dog searches and alerts [17].

[17] Appellant filed a motion to reconsider the admissibility of the cadaver dog evidence, and the court by order denied the motion to reconsider.

(…)

On appeal, appellant alleges that the trial court erred by admitting cadaver dog evidence because the evidence was not based on reliable scientific evidence or methods [18]. Appellant argues that the science underlying cadaver dog evidence is not reliable, and thus the trial court erred in admitting testimony relating to this evidence.

[18] In addition, appellant argues under this assignment of error that the court applied an incorrect legal standard by placing the burden of proving the reliability of proffered scientific evidence on appellant. However, appellant did not raise this argument before the trial court; thus, we do not address it on appeal. See Rule 5A:18

(…)

We conclude that this same analysis applies to the admission of cadaver dog evidence. Cadaver dog evidence does not require a scientific foundation for its admission; rather, the cadaver dog evidence must be shown to be reliable from experience, which can be met through the testimony of the cadaver dog handler. Thus, as with dog trailing evidence in Pelletier, cadaver dog evidence may be admitted without a showing of its precise scientific basis [19].

[19] The Michigan Court of Appeals came to a similar conclusion in People v. Lane, 862 N.W.2d 446 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). In Lane, a case which involved the same cadaver dog, Morse, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that cadaver dog evidence could not be admitted because chemical evidence could not corroborate whether there was human decomposition at the locations identified by the dog. Id. at 457. In analyzing this argument under MRE 702, Michigan’s rule of evidence regarding the admission of expert opinion testimony on areas of specialized knowledge, the Court of Appeals held that a lack of scientific verification of the presence of a specific scent was not reason to exclude cadaver dog evidence in every case. Id. at 457-48. Instead, the Michigan Court of Appeals found that the evidence could be admitted after a sufficient foundation was established that: “(1) the handler was qualified to use the dog, (2) the dog was trained and accurate in identifying human remains, (3) circumstantial evidence corroborates the dog’s identification, and (4) the evidence was not so stale or contaminated as to make it beyond the dog’s competency to identify it.” Id. at 457.

(…)

Appellant also argues that, due to its lack of scientific reliability, the cadaver dog evidence did not constitute proper expert opinion testimony.

(…)

The trial court heard evidence as to the qualifications and training of the cadaver dog handler, the training of the dog itself, and the circumstances surrounding the search and the dog’s scent identification. This evidence established a proper foundation for the admission of the cadaver dog evidence. Therefore, we hold that the court did not err in admitting the expert testimony regarding the cadaver dog evidence [20].

[20] Appellant further argues that the admission of the cadaver dog evidence violated Rule 2:703(b) and Rule 2:403. We find no merit in either argument.

Rule 2:703(b) provides that “the opinion of an expert is generally admissible if it is based upon facts personally known or observed by the expert, or based upon facts in evidence.” Appellant argues the admission of the cadaver dog evidence violated this evidentiary rule because Stockham and Grime “did not establish that the dogs were sufficiently reliable for identifying scent from a specific person, or determining that a specific person was ever in an exact location” and “could not identify what the dogs were alerting to.” Here, Grime personally conducted the search of the victim’s house with Morse and observed him alert in the basement bathroom and master bedroom. He opined that “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty,” Morse alerted to human decomposition. His opinion was derived from his personal observation of Morse the day of the search and from his prior training with Morse. Thus, the evidence did not violate Rule 2:703(b).

Rule 2:403(a) provides that relevant evidence may be excluded if “the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by . . . its likelihood of confusing or misleading the trier of fact.” Appellant argues that the cadaver dog evidence improperly permitted the jury to speculate that there was an odor of human decomposition in the bedroom and that its source was the victim, and because there was no foundation for these conclusions, the jury was likely confused or misled. However, as noted above, the Commonwealth had provided a proper foundation for the expert testimony given by Stockham and Grime. They both opined that Morse alerted to the odor of human decomposition, and the jury was free to draw the reasonable inference that this odor derived from the victim.

Appellant further contends that the admission of the cadaver dog evidence invited jury confusion and speculation because it was just as likely, if not more likely, that the dog falsely alerted, alerted due to the presence of menstrual blood, alerted to an odor transferred from the basement, or alerted to a source existing prior to March 19 or to a source created after March 20. However, appellant was given the opportunity to cross-examine, and did cross-examine, both experts on the variables that could produce a cadaver dog’s alert. The arguments relating to the likelihood that the dog falsely alerted or alerted to a presence other than the victim’s body went only to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”

Only here, and in the last paragraph of a footnote does the question of Morse also being a blood dog is raised by the appellant.

However, it is stated that the “appellant was given the opportunity to cross-examine, and did cross-examine, both experts on the variables that could produce a cadaver dog’s alert. The arguments relating to the likelihood that the dog falsely alerted or alerted to a presence other than the victim’s body went only to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.”

From the first paragraph we can see that this would be the arguments over the weight: “the cadaver dog evidence invited jury confusion and speculation” and this would be over the admissibility: “because it was just as likely, if not more likely, that the dog falsely alerted, alerted due to the presence of menstrual blood, alerted to an odor transferred from the basement, or alerted to a source existing prior to March 19 or to a source created after March 20”.

The cross-examination went ONLY to the weight.

Means that the admissibility, or the opportunity to discuss with the experts in a court during an actual trail whether Morse was also a blood dog or not, was not seized by the defense. Why?

This explains why there’s no mention of Morse possibly being a blood dog by the experts when they spoke at the trial, as they weren’t challenged about it. In the right place, at the right time the defense chickened out in clarifying if the dog falsely alerted, if the dog alerted due to the presence of menstrual blood, if the dog alerted to an odor transferred from the basement, or if the dog alerted to a source existing prior to March 19 or to a source created after March 20. Again, we ask why? We all know the answers to all that.

Would the defense have missed such an opportunity to undermine the EVR dog’s evidence? Of course not and to prove that they didn’t forget, is them mentioning all in the appeal where they knew there would be no experts there to reply.

They did what Gerry McCann tried to do in Lisbon about the dogs, they tried to sneak in the issue in a way that it would be implanted but not properly discussed.

In Lisbon, the judge silenced Gerry, in this case the judge sent the issue to a footnote saying clearly the opportunity was given to the defense to argue the issue with the experts in court and if they didn’t do that when they could have, then bad luck the opportunity was lost: “Appellant filed a motion to reconsider the admissibility of the cadaver dog evidence, and the court by order denied the motion to reconsider.”

Unfortunately the appellant in this case was more successful than Gerry as he was able to get the judge to write down an absolute absurdity about what quantities of dried blood each of the dogs was allegedly trained to alert to, when neither had their respective training, focused on quantities of blood but solely on their target scents, cadaver and blood, each to its own.



14. Another appeal against the admissibility of dog evidence in court

The Castillo case was not the only case an appeal against the admissibility of dog evidence was denied. In fact, the decision on Castillo’s appeal cites another case in Michigan.

The People v Lane case.

In terms of training, reliability and cadaver-scent contamination:

“At trial, FBI Canine Program Manager Rex Stockham testified as an expert in forensic canine operation. Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham’s protocol called for regular single- and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives. Stockham’s program had three full-time handlers in its program, including Martin Grime. Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime’s dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range. Stockham testified that dogs have been able to smell the odor of decomposition as soon as 2 hours after a victim’s death, or years after a victim’s burial.

Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs’ responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.”

This confirms what we have said: “Stockham testified about the process of training and testing victim recovery dogs. Stockham’s protocol called for regular single- and double-blind testing of dogs throughout their working lives”. Is it credible that a dog is deployed without being 100% reliable in every single alert he gives? Of course not but the Rat and NotTextusa would like us to believe that is the case.

“Stockham testified that he had tested Morse and Keela, Grime’s dogs, and that both dogs had accuracy ratings in the high 90 percent range”, is this from where NotTextusa/Watcher got his “Independent, peer-reviewed studies on similar dogs have found them to be very reliable with positive predictive values over 90%.”? We think it is.

Stockham would go on to say in the Castillo trial that he “had written a number of papers on human scent evidence that had been peer reviewed and published. He was one of two supervisors of the division’s forensic K-9 program” so NotTextusa/Watcher’s “peer-reviewed studies” probably came from this document.

But did the reader notice the subtlety?

Stockham says “in the high 90 percent range” which one immediately places to be over 97% while NotTextusa/Watcher says “values over 90%” which, after having read what the Rat has said with his 95% reliability, one would clearly place it on the 95% mark or below, giving Eddie/Keela a 5% or more margin of error for false negatives that simply doesn’t exist.

“Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.””, once again, in court, no reference to Morse searching and detecting odour of blood and blood is mentioned when speaking of Keela.

And then the sentence that disproves NotTextusa, the scientist, to which he has not yet given any explanation as to how his gaseous theory fits into this: “Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs’ responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.””

If contamination is by touch, as Grime says and as we have said, then it cannot be gaseous as NotTextusa/Warcher says and NotTextusa/Watcher says that it’s only gaseous.



15. Alerts and DNA

In terms of alerts and DNA forensics, this People v Lane case is very interesting when compared with Maddie’s:

“According to Grime, on December 4, 2011, he took his dogs to an enclosed warehouse that contained 31 vehicles. Grime was told that Bianca was in one of the vehicles at the time of the carjacking, but was not told which vehicle was involved. Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.

Grime testified that, after the vehicle screening, he took the dogs to an administrative building to screen the items removed from Dungey’s car. Grime did not know where the objects were located in the building, and the objects had been placed in a room filled with “all sorts of things.” Morse alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca’s car seat and a bag containing Bianca’s blanket. Grime later took the dogs to Dungey’s house. Morse alerted him to the odor of decomposition in a room that contained bunk beds and a closet without a door.”

In this case Keela doesn’t even alert. The only DNA evidence is obtained from a paddle:

“According to Lyons, the sound of Bianca crying woke her during the night. She heard “a couple taps” from the downstairs bathroom and a toilet flushing. Lyons heard Lane ask Bianca about wetting the bed, heard the closet door open, and heard Lane hitting Bianca with the paddle. Lyons did not get up to investigate. Lyons testified that, in response to an investigative subpoena, she had stated that she heard four or five smacking sounds and that Bianca was crying “like she was really intensely in pain.

(…)

Andrea Halverson, an expert in DNA and forensic science, testified that she tested a DNA sample from the paddle. She excluded Jones and Dungey as contributors to the sample, but could not exclude Bianca or Lane. Halverson also tested a blood sample from a pillow, which matched Bianca’s DNA profile.”

Please note that in this case, without a body having been found, there was no conclusive DNA evidence and yet it resulted in a conviction.

Based on what? Circumstantial evidence corroborated by the EVR dog’s alerts. No need for forensic confirmation of the EVR dog’s alerts as some adamantly claim are absolutely needed for the alerts to be used in court.

Also note a very interesting thing. In Maddie’s case whatever DNA evidence there is, John Lowe the “expert in DNA and forensic science” involved in the case, is very persistent in making the point that in his opinion (and only an opinion) it cannot be linked to Maddie. In this case no opinion is given, the “expert in DNA and forensic science” excludes (not an opinion) 2 people and doesn’t exclude (not an opinion) other 2, who just happen to be victim and suspect.

She doesn’t say it is them, just says that they cannot be excluded. That’s what Lowe should have said about the samples in the Maddie case but didn’t.

This case shows very clearly how with only what is known, if there wasn’t humongous protection, there would be enough to take the case to trial and convict the McCanns and friends for concealment of body and obstruction of justice, leaving up to the prosecution what kind of homicide they would charge the couple with, unless of course, a confession would help clarify things.

Please do not mistake us saying that a confession is needed. A confession would help clarify things. A confession that would corroborate and be corroborated by the existing facts.

Those existing facts alone, as this People v Lane case shows, would be sufficient to charge the couple and friends as per said above.



16. Motion denied

We will transcribe fully the reasons why the court denied this appeal. And recommend readers to establish a parallel between this case (in terms of evidence and not in terms of how death happened) with Maddie’s:

“The Court's analysis of the admissibility of the cadaver dog evidence admitted at trial followed.

MRE 702 permits the trial court to admit expert opinion testimony on areas of specialized knowledge:

If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

“[T]he court may admit evidence only once it ensures, pursuant to MRE 702, that expert testimony meets that rule's standard of reliability.” The Davis-Frye test examines the reliability of the evidence. The purpose of this test is to “ensure that a jury is not relying on unproven and ultimately unsound scientific methods...”

Lane contends that the trial court erred when it admitted the cadaver dog evidence in this case because the testimony was not the product of reliable principles or methods. We disagree.

Michigan courts have applied the Davis-Frye test to the admissibility of tracking dog evidence. In People v Riemersma, this Court considered whether tracking dog evidence was admissible. In Riemersma, the dog’s handler testified about the dog’s reliability during testing and in prior investigations. Additionally, circumstantial evidence corroborated the dog’s identification. This Court concluded that, under those circumstances, the tracking dog evidence was admissible.

The Riermersma Court relied on this Court’s previous holding in People v Norwood regarding the necessary foundation to establish that tracking dog evidence is reliable. In Norwood, this Court held that tracking dog evidence is sufficiently reliable if the proponent of the evidence shows four things:

(1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in tracking humans; (3) the dog was placed on the trail where circumstances indicate the alleged guilty party to have been; and, (4) the trail had not become so stale or contaminated as to be beyond the dog’s competency to follow it.

We reject Lane’s argument that, because chemical evidence cannot corroborate whether there was decomposition at the locations Morse identified in this case, the evidence must be excluded as unreliable. Clearly, the four-part test adopted by this Court to ensure the reliability of tracking dog evidence does not exactly correlate to the use of cadaver dogs. However, cadaver dog evidence is not significantly different from other forms of tracking dog evidence. Tracking dogs and cadaver dogs both use a precise sense of smell to identify scents that are outside the range of human ability to detect. Scientific devices can no more follow the scent left on a piece of discarded clothing from the scene of a robbery to a person’s home than they can identify the smell of decomposing human remains. Just as it is not a reason to exclude all tracking dog evidence, the lack of scientific verification of the presence of a specific scent is not a reason to exclude cadaver dog evidence in a blanket fashion. We conclude that the trial court must instead consider the reliability of the cadaver dog evidence in each case.

We also conclude that the trial court did not err by applying the tracking dog test to cadaver dog evidence. Essentially, the trial court in this case applied the foundational requirements of Norwood to another form of dog-based evidence. Here, the trial court determined that Grime and Stockham were “more than qualified,” that they had employed sufficient training methods, and that circumstantial evidence supported Morse’s identification of the car, car seat, and blanket because Morse identified those items when neither Morse nor Grime had any prior knowledge that those items were involved in this case. While the trial court did not specifically determine that the evidence was not stale, Grime’s dogs tested the evidence on December 4, 2011, a mere two days after Bianca’s disappearance on December 2, 2011, and there was no evidence that the car, car seat, or blanket were contaminated with human remains.

In sum, we conclude that cadaver dog evidence is sufficiently reliable if the proponent of the evidence establishes the foundation that (1) the handler was qualified to use the dog; (2) the dog was trained and accurate in identifying human remains; (3) circumstantial evidence corroborates the dog’s identification; and, (4) the evidence was not so stale or contaminated as to be beyond the dog’s competency to identify it. We conclude that, here, the trial court correctly ruled that the prosecutor provided a sufficient foundation to admit the cadaver dog evidence in this case. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under MRE 702 . . .

Lane contends that the trial court erred because (1) the evidence was uncorroborated and thus not probative, and (2) the evidence was unfairly prejudicial because it invited the jury to rely on the infallibility of the dog. We disagree.

The killing of a human being is an element of murder. Because Bianca’s body was never recovered and Lane alleged that she was kidnapped, the fact of Bianca’s death was in contention. The reaction of a cadaver dog to the child’s car seat, blanket, and bedroom certainly makes the fact of Bianca’s death more likely to be true.

As discussed above, it is not necessary to have a machine confirm the presence of the odor of decomposition to admit the cadaver dog evidence. In tracking dog cases, this Court has concluded that evidence is corroborated when circumstantial evidence also supports the reliability of the dog. Here, circumstantial evidence supported the dog’s reliability. Morse identified Dungey’s car and items associated with Bianca without Morse or Grime knowing that those items were involved in Bianca’s disappearance. Further, the seven-year-old testified that Bianca did not walk, talk, move, or speak on the morning of her disappearance, witnesses testified that Lane took Bianca to his car with a blanket over her head, and Lane’s nephew testified that Bianca was “[j]ust looking” while she was on the couch and in the car. We conclude that the evidence was probative in this case.

We also disagree with Lane’s contention that it was highly likely that the jury would give the cadaver dog evidence presumptive weight. The record simply does not support Lane’s assertions that Grime and Stockham testified that the dogs were infallible. Rather, Stockham testified that the dogs’ accuracy was in the high 90 percent range, and Grime specifically testified that he would not say that the dogs were perfect. The trial court also instructed the jury that it could not convict Lane solely on the basis of the cadaver dog evidence. This Court presumes that jurors follow their instructions. We conclude that the trial court did not err by admitting irrelevant evidence.”

We just repeat this from the above for consideration: “The killing of a human being is an element of murder. Because Bianca’s body was never recovered and Lane alleged that she was kidnapped, the fact of Bianca’s death was in contention. The reaction of a cadaver dog to the child’s car seat, blanket, and bedroom certainly makes the fact of Bianca’s death more likely to be true.”



17. Conclusion

When the Rat and NotTextusa/Walker say the dogs are 95% reliable they are not supporting the dogs.

They are simply playing with readers’ minds and opening a margin of doubt that doesn’t exist but that they need to undermine Eddie’s alerts.

If one adds up the possibility of Eddie also alerting to blood and having a 5% chance (1 in 20) of being wrong, how reliable would his alerts be? They would not and that is what they wish to convince people of.

Only Eddie is not a blood dog, he’s a cadaver dog and his alerts are 100% accurate.

Yes, there may be a remote possibility that there may be sources of scents that he may not alert to (false negatives)  but what is relevant is that his alerts are 100% cadaver scent.

As we saw, dog evidence in courts is becoming more and more frequent. Let’s not forget that they are already an integral part of a court decision in Portugal as PROVEN facts.

In comparison with the Lane case, only the value given to the circumstantial evidence is different. Both the US and the Portuguese courts agree that the EVR dog’s alerts (Eddie in the Maddie case, Morse in Lane’s) proved the presence of a cadaver in the locations he alerted to.

In the Castillo case, even though the body was found, Morse’s alerts proved that the victim did not die where the body was found.

All found 100% reliable by the courts. Not up for debate. The Rat wants to instil doubt where there is none. However small the doubt he’s able to instil, he wins.

In the Lane case, the court agreed that it was Bianca, whilst the Portuguese didn’t conclude anything about to whom the cadaver scent belonged. That’s the only difference.

The dog question is over and done with in Portugal. The justice system has stated as proven that marks of cadaver and blood were found in the Scenic and Apartment 5A.

The case rests only on determining if the biological samples found belong to Maddie.

If that is determined, those on the other side can claim whatever they wish to claim about Maddie – as it is the right of every defense to do – at the end of the day what matters is what is written and what history will judge about this case in the future.

They say life runs in cycles, on constant actions and reactions, like a huge pendulum on its way to perfection somewhere in a distant future.

Now we are in times when facts aren’t facts. Denying that would be useless. But what will happen is that in the future this period is likely to be followed by a fact-orthodoxy one, where to not state a fact will be heavily frowned upon and probably punished to avoid a return to this past we are now living in.

Those who history will register as fact-dupers will be “persecuted” if not even persecuted without inverted commas.

The mob will always need someone or something to direct against the fury of their unhappiness and these people who are now deliberately and shamelessly twisting facts and being registered doing so, and we repeat deliberately and repeat shamelessly, will in this “next” future we envision probably be roll-called to some public square.

Food for thought. Some “stalkers” are watching. And some of those “stalkers” have been “stalking” for a while now:

So one must be careful to avoid any future embarrassments:

So, please do keep in mind that it’s always better to be remembered to have been “in-FACT-uated” than to be remembered having been an intentional deceiver regarding the death of a 4 yr old girl.