[Ed] Dogs and death (from[Merged] Another death-detecting dog. For real this time?)

[Liken]

Since that death-detecting cat in New England a few weeks back wasn't enough human interest BS for the month, meet "Scamp":

(pops)
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2007/08/15/kendrick.oh.grim.reaper.dog.woio

And get this, Scamp can detect death "without any formal training" PLUS he wears a cute little bib! Take THAT science!

[Big Les]

As well as the death-kitty and this death-detecting dog (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90492), police in the Madeline McCann missing child case are now claiming that a British sniffer dog (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/16/nmaddy116.xml)has detected traces of a dead body in the hotel room (though the recent blood traces were found not to be her).

Is this even possible? If she was killed in that room, her body was moved in pretty short order - how could any traces of decomposition be in evidence that soon?

[Big Les]

Why has this been merged? It's not the same dog (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2844015.ece). In fact it was Liken's thread that inspired me to look out a report re the McCann case.

The dog(s) I had started a separate thread about are police dogs that have been trained to actually smell dead bodies. In itself, completely legitimate. However as the first article I linked to points out, you need enough time for decomposition products to be detectable (they say two hours). Therefore I'm less sceptical about the premise, but still very sceptical that the animals would be of any use at all in this case (as the girl is unlikely to have remained the hotel for long enough to leave detectable traces of death).

[Liken]

These threads were merged but they're not the same story, but I guess that's evident from the links. The merge does make sense since both stories stem from the same brand of nonsense. These damn psychic sniffer dogs are apparently all over the place.

So much so that maybe it would make more sense if all the hospitals and police stations around the were be staffed by pets :rolleyes: . Look for "Law and Order: Special Schnauzer Unit" in your local listings coming soon.

[Liken]

Having just reread your link though, Les, the McCann dog is far more interesting, and malicious, than the little fluff story I linked.

Clearly both are lessons on how magical thinking (?) can to a broad spectrum of false conclusions. However, the idea that hospital staff might actually contact relatives and (falsely) warn them of an impending death in the family is one thing, but changing the course of a police investigation based on this nonsense is an outrage. :mad:

I'm no forensics/legal expert but it seems to me that doing so could at best result in a lawsuit and at worst jeopardize the life of the victim who could be alive. Is this for real?

[Big Les]

It's not (AFAICT) magical thinking as such. I think its a case of desperation on the part of the police. The science behind the dog's use is sound, it's just being used inappropriately and (arguably) to be seen to be doing something special to progress the case.

And it's quite different from your (also interesting) story, which is why I started the separate thread. Sorry to have inadvertently hijacked your thread!

[Liken]

No problem on the merge, thanks. The Mods can re-title the thread or split them again as far as I care.

I don't quite understand how the dog in the McCann case could lead the police to such a conclusion and in such certain terms either, so I hope somebody who understands these things can weigh in to determine just how much this is a "science is telling us she's probably not alive" as opposed to "she's probably not alive so we're going to use this dog to convince people that don't know how forensics works to prove what we think we already know to the public." If that makes sense...

[Miss Whiplash]

I've never heard of psychic sniffer dogs before.

BTW-Scamp is wearing a bandanna, not a bib! :D

[Big Les]

"Scamp" is a "psychic dog" but not a sniffer dog, and the other dogs are sniffer dogs, but aren't "psychic" (just their application in this case seems inappropriate).

[DRBUZZ0]

As well as the death-kitty and this death-detecting dog (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90492), police in the Madeline McCann missing child case are now claiming that a British sniffer dog (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/16/nmaddy116.xml)has detected traces of a dead body in the hotel room (though the recent blood traces were found not to be her).

Is this even possible? If she was killed in that room, her body was moved in pretty short order - how could any traces of decomposition be in evidence that soon?

You mean a cadaver dog? Yes, they are quite amazing in the sensitivity of their sense of smell and they are trained with recombinant human protean products which produce a sent similar to a decaying human body. (No, it's not something that a person could smell... at least not easily).

The dogs are very good at what they do. When searching landfills even, they are able to find bodies amongst huge amounts of decaying trash and other smells. The one thing which can throw them off is medical waste. Tissue samples, old bags of human blood and that sort of thing will obviously contain the same chemicals as a human body.

I have heard stories of them even getting false hits on unmarked, but non-criminal graves, some going back a long long time more than you would expect for any identifiable human scents to remain. (IE: An infant buried on an old farm area in the early 20th century, where the marker has been taken.)

They can get "hits" on areas where there is no body, but one has been left for some time, but later moved. This, however, isn't the sort of thing that would be conclusive proof. It is evidence however, especially when multiple dogs keep getting a hit in the same place. (which they often indicate by some means, like sniffing around and then sitting and looking at the area)


Dogs sense of smell is not like a humans, but more sensitive. It's not that simple. There's really no comparison. A dog's ability to recognize smell, understand them and pick them out from the background, follow them and remember them is something humans have no means of directly comprehending.

A well trained dog, especially of certain breeds with large nasal cavities, can do things you would otherwise think impossible.

[chillzero]

I have retitled the thread, and I hope this helps - I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I was doing too many things at once.

[Dogdoctor]

Dogs can be trained to find dead humans. They train them to find dead humans usually by using cadaver parts or simply surgically removed parts which were allowed to decay. These bits of tissue are placed in a container with air holes and hidden and then the dogs are rewarded for finding them. The process is almost the same as for finding live humans. I hear that in some countries they only allow pig cadavers so the dogs may be more likely to find dead pigs than humans.

[DRBUZZ0]

Dogs can be trained to find dead humans. They train them to find dead humans usually by using cadaver parts or simply surgically removed parts which were allowed to decay. These bits of tissue are placed in a container with air holes and hidden and then the dogs are rewarded for finding them. The process is almost the same as for finding live humans. I hear that in some countries they only allow pig cadavers so the dogs may be more likely to find dead pigs than humans.

Is that still the case? I know that tissue samples are sometimes used for some of the final training and testing of cadaver dogs. However, I thought that most of the general-purpose training and practice was done with this sort of thing:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n3_v17/ai_18047705
http://leerburg.com/cadaver.htm
http://www.elitek9.com/Scent_Detection/index.htm

I think the premier product right now is "Sigma Psuedo Corpse" which is "Sanitary, safe to handle and effective for training of dogs for finding recent or decayed bodies"

[Big Les]

My revised question here is - is it, as the Telegraph say, not possible for a cadaver dog to detect a dead body if it's been in situe for less than two hours?

If so, I can't think their use in this case is appropriate - there's no way that girl's body would have been left there for two hours by the killer (assuming she was in fact killed there and not abducted).

[DRBUZZ0]

My revised question here is - is it, as the Telegraph say, not possible for a cadaver dog to detect a dead body if it's been in situe for less than two hours?

If so, I can't think their use in this case is appropriate - there's no way that girl's body would have been left there for two hours by the killer (assuming she was in fact killed there and not abducted).

I'm not sure. I know they can detect them if they have been in some area for some time (for example dug up and moved from a shallow grave or something).

I would imagine, based on how sensitive a dog's nose is (they can follow a person's scent just from them having passed through an area.)

I suppose that it would be possible, if the dead body had been dead for a reasonable amount of time. After death, protein synthesis stops within a couple of hours and cells begin to break down and have significant chemical changes. Then, over time, there will obviously be more and more microbial decay.

So I would have to wonder, does a freshly dead corpse emit enough of the decay products and the scents to leave a residue that could be detected?

It seems like it would need to have at least a little while before the biological composition of the skin and such changes enough to be very decernable from skin cells, sweat and such that are always being shed.

But I'm not entirely sure how long it would be before a body would be decayed enough to leave a significant trace after just lying somewhere for a couple of hours. Probably a day or more, I would guess...

[Dogdoctor]

Is that still the case? I know that tissue samples are sometimes used for some of the final training and testing of cadaver dogs. However, I thought that most of the general-purpose training and practice was done with this sort of thing:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n3_v17/ai_18047705
http://leerburg.com/cadaver.htm
http://www.elitek9.com/Scent_Detection/index.htm

I think the premier product right now is "Sigma Psuedo Corpse" which is "Sanitary, safe to handle and effective for training of dogs for finding recent or decayed bodies"

Interesting stuff there DRBUZZO. I hadn't heard of that stuff. I am going to ask my dog training friends about it. They still use cadaver parts.

As far as the scent of a dead corpse being in a room for 2 hours, yeah it can remain in pools or pockets if undisturbed or in fabric for a while (not sure how long but pretty sure more than a couple hours). However if there is a fake corpse scent, what's to say it wasn't that?

[DRBUZZ0]

However if there is a fake corpse scent, what's to say it wasn't that?

Um... I suppose it's not entirely provable, but how many people carry around a couple of containers of "Eau de le rotting human flesh" in their baggage and spray it in their room?