9 ms·

I've been listening to the podcast Your Own Backyard (yes, I occasionally indulge in true crime, sue me!) There was recently an entire episode dedicated almost

I've been listening to the podcast Your Own Backyard (yes, I occasionally indulge in true crime, sue me!) There was recently an entire episode dedicated almost entirely to cadaver dog testimony. Well, the dog was not testifying, the handler was. Now, I have no doubt that cadaver dogs can, and do, find cadavers, and can detect when a cadaver was recently present. But listening to the testimony of the handler, from their viewpoints, the cadaver dogs are psychic. The ability of their senses verges on mysticism. I don't doubt that there is value to cadaver dogs - clearly they work, and get results. But the humans who testify on the dogs' behalf have a cult-like behavior about what the dogs can realistically detect, and how they interpret the dogs behaviors.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Some of the humans, the subset who's testimony was selected to appear on that show.
giantg2 4y ago
"... and how they interpret the dogs behaviors." The interpretation part is huge in many disciplines. If you especially look at high profile cases, you can have experts for each side presenting opposing interpretations (not even involving animals). Then it's up to the jury to decide which is more believable. There's your spooky story for the day.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
  And, unfortunately, "reasonable doubt" is not a reliable fallback in such a situation.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Reasonable is whatever they say it is.
- FpUser 4y ago
  So it seems that "beyond the reasonable doubts" is a fiction unless one can afford really expensive lawyers.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    Even expensive lawyers and experts do not always overcome the court of opinion.
  - atkailash 4y ago
    At least in the jury I was in, people severely misunderstand reasonable doubt. And they took into consideration the defendant not testifying, as is their right under the 5th Amendment. No matter how I pointed it out they kept saying “if they didn’t have anything to hide, why not testify?” It’s definitely destroyed my trust in a jury of my peers.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "It’s definitely destroyed my trust in a jury of my peers." If only they were actual peers. Many of the smart ones know what to say to get out of being on a jury. There are so many people with biases too, and many don't get filtered out because they don't even realize that their belief is based on bias.
      - atkailash 4y ago
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"Many of the smart ones know what to say to get out of being on a jury." I believe in supremacy of justice as I understand it over a written rule (I know it is flawed but this is me). If I feel that person will be punished unjustly then screw the law and I would vote for nullification as it is my right. I think this will stop from being selected as a juror.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  I only recently learned that you can waive your right to a jury, and instead have your case decided by the judge. I think this would be a very tempting option for me, if I ever found myself in serious legal trouble. I assume a judge would be less susceptible to emotional manipulation, and be intelligent enough to properly weigh the facts. Of course, then you are at the mercy of one person.
  - btilly 4y ago
    Well actually they will bypass both and offer you a deal you can't refuse. It's called a plea bargain. "Plea guilty and here is your penalty. And if you don't, here is the stack of charges we'll try to get you for and how much worst it will be. Do you feel lucky, punk?" Over 95% of cases end this way. Based on exoneration, a fairly significant percentage are actually innocent people who decide that they can't fight it. If you think this doesn't sound like justice, I absolutely agree.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "and instead have your case decided by the judge." Oh God no. This is even worse. In my limited experience, judges can be very biased. They tend to be very unaccommodating as to what reasonable doubt is (it's whatever they say it is).
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Then it's up to the jury to decide which is more believable. And anyone who the prosecutor will stereotype as potentially having too much critical thinking skills or skepticism of the prosecution will get tossed from the jury.
jessaustin 4y ago
A cadaver dog could be useful for finding a carcass, human or otherwise. Once a carcass is found, can't more qualified experts testify about it? Are we talking about cases in which a carcass wasn't found, but was theorized to have been present at some point?! How do we know the carcass was human? How do we know how long ago it was present? If we could be certain of either of those things, how do we know it was the particular human whose murder is being prosecuted? We can't blame dog enthusiasts for testifying, but it's a judge's job to keep fantasists out. Judges who allow such testimony aren't stupid; they are evil.
- bombcar 4y ago
  When they find a body, it's easy. It's the cases you'll read about when it says the dog "activated" or "altered" five times on the property, even though nothing was found, and that's somehow used as evidence of something.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    That's hideous. Judges who allow that testimony should be impeached and disbarred, at a minimum.
    - vkou 4y ago
      I don't see why judges can't allow bunk testimony, the problem is that juries have been watching way too much CSI:Miami and don't believe any arguments brought up by the defense that forensic 'experts' are reading chicken entrails.
      - MereInterest 4y ago
        For the same reason that a defendant may not be presented to the jury in handcuffs or in a prison uniform. Because we humans are not able to return to a blank slate, free from biases imparted by information later learned to be false. For methods that are known to be useless, the jury shouldn't be asked to perform the impossible.
    - 4y ago
asveikau 4y ago
> (yes, I occasionally indulge in true crime, sue me!) Sounds like civil court rather than criminal.
levi_n 4y ago
"2biteencryption", name checks out
ghastmaster 4y ago
Similarly, handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes to at least some degree as indicated in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ > No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect > Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations. > The overwhelming number of incorrect alerts identified across conditions confirms that handler beliefs affect performance. Further, the directed pattern of alerts in conditions containing a marker compared with the pattern of alerts in the condition with unmarked decoy scent suggests that human influence on handler beliefs affects alerts to a greater degree than dog influence on handler beliefs I found this to be very telling. It at the very least warrants more study. At the worst and in my opinion, warrants elimination of dog scent detection as the sole factor in a search.
- rozab 4y ago
  Check out this article from the National Detector Dog Association - 'The Double-Blind Attack'. These people seriously don't believe in science. https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/ https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/
  - ghastmaster 4y ago
    Wow! > Results in confusion and frustration in the canine – As stated previously, under doubleblind testing, the determination of the team’s accuracy cannot be made at the time of the alert. Therefore, to provide or withhold a reward from the canine under such a condition can result in confusing and frustrating the canine, which will lead to an increase chance of incorrect responses. Juxtapose that with the real world. I am not an expert but I sincerely doubt that K9s in airports get treats every time they correctly identify a illicit source. That is why they are trained constantly(I presume). Testing for one hour or one day will likely not have an effect on the long term ability of the dog to correctly sniff illicit sources. The NNDDA article is addressing the "double blind attack", which in my opinion is their way of redirecting from the notion that the K9s should not be used as a gold standard to ascertain probable cause. I would have to think more on the subject to comment on reasonable suspicion. If they truly believed in the idea that handlers are benign, they would embrace the double blind process.
bee_rider 4y ago
I would be fascinated to know how many and to what extent police techniques that appear to stretch believably are really tools to perform parallel reconstruction and get around shady sources of evidence.
- rnk 4y ago
  Probably a lot of them. The US justice system has a lot of good things, but parallel reconstruction, constantly using the easiest way to get info even if it is illegal. Of course the latest thing is spying on all of us either through apps on our phones or just asking the phone company directly.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
The entire industry, yes industry, of "expert witnesses" is murky.
- xorcist 4y ago
  Not just murky. Surf around and you can find companies offering these types of experts as a service. These experts are often experts in a surprisingly wide variety of fields, too.
Jenda_ 4y ago
> But the humans who testify on the dogs' behalf have a cult-like behavior about what the dogs can realistically detect, and how they interpret the dogs behaviors. There was a scandal here in .cz regarding forensic odorology using dogs, as a report came out where the authors basically found out they were unable to test it, because the dog-operators either did not understand what is a double-blind experiment, or they even actively sabotaged it. It is then implied that when they do the identification for real, they are not blind to who the suspect/control is. (report, unfortunately only in Czech: https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop.pdf https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop....; google translate: https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop-google-translate.pdf https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop-... )
- rnk 4y ago
  It's clear that this resistance to being reasonably tested is because the handlers are obviously influencing the dogs. It's freaking irritating. A lot of that is drug war bs. I thought only us law enforcement would be resistant to evaluation.
  - Huh1337 4y ago
    The more "system" you have the more often you'll hear "sorry, but that's just how the system works" and nobody will ever be able to (or want to) do anything about the problem. And there's a lot of system around here in EU. Applies to healthcare, social care/security and of course police as well.
macrael 4y ago
I did volunteer search and rescue for a bit and people were split on weather dogs were even useful in that context either. Some people thought they were indispensable and some thought they were useless.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago

Some of the humans, the subset who's testimony was selected to appear on that show.

giantg2 4y ago

"... and how they interpret the dogs behaviors." The interpretation part is huge in many disciplines. If you especially look at high profile cases, you can have experts for each side presenting opposing interpretations (not even involving animals). Then it's up to the jury to decide which is more believable. There's your spooky story for the day.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago
And, unfortunately, "reasonable doubt" is not a reliable fallback in such a situation.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Reasonable is whatever they say it is.
FpUser 4y ago
So it seems that "beyond the reasonable doubts" is a fiction unless one can afford really expensive lawyers.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Even expensive lawyers and experts do not always overcome the court of opinion.
- atkailash 4y ago
  At least in the jury I was in, people severely misunderstand reasonable doubt. And they took into consideration the defendant not testifying, as is their right under the 5th Amendment. No matter how I pointed it out they kept saying “if they didn’t have anything to hide, why not testify?” It’s definitely destroyed my trust in a jury of my peers.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "It’s definitely destroyed my trust in a jury of my peers." If only they were actual peers. Many of the smart ones know what to say to get out of being on a jury. There are so many people with biases too, and many don't get filtered out because they don't even realize that their belief is based on bias.
    - atkailash 4y ago
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Many of the smart ones know what to say to get out of being on a jury." I believe in supremacy of justice as I understand it over a written rule (I know it is flawed but this is me). If I feel that person will be punished unjustly then screw the law and I would vote for nullification as it is my right. I think this will stop from being selected as a juror.
dahfizz 4y ago
I only recently learned that you can waive your right to a jury, and instead have your case decided by the judge. I think this would be a very tempting option for me, if I ever found myself in serious legal trouble. I assume a judge would be less susceptible to emotional manipulation, and be intelligent enough to properly weigh the facts. Of course, then you are at the mercy of one person.
- btilly 4y ago
  Well actually they will bypass both and offer you a deal you can't refuse. It's called a plea bargain. "Plea guilty and here is your penalty. And if you don't, here is the stack of charges we'll try to get you for and how much worst it will be. Do you feel lucky, punk?" Over 95% of cases end this way. Based on exoneration, a fairly significant percentage are actually innocent people who decide that they can't fight it. If you think this doesn't sound like justice, I absolutely agree.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "and instead have your case decided by the judge." Oh God no. This is even worse. In my limited experience, judges can be very biased. They tend to be very unaccommodating as to what reasonable doubt is (it's whatever they say it is).
dsfyu404ed 4y ago
>Then it's up to the jury to decide which is more believable. And anyone who the prosecutor will stereotype as potentially having too much critical thinking skills or skepticism of the prosecution will get tossed from the jury.

jessaustin 4y ago

A cadaver dog could be useful for finding a carcass, human or otherwise. Once a carcass is found, can't more qualified experts testify about it? Are we talking about cases in which a carcass wasn't found, but was theorized to have been present at some point?! How do we know the carcass was human? How do we know how long ago it was present? If we could be certain of either of those things, how do we know it was the particular human whose murder is being prosecuted? We can't blame dog enthusiasts for testifying, but it's a judge's job to keep fantasists out. Judges who allow such testimony aren't stupid; they are evil.

bombcar 4y ago
When they find a body, it's easy. It's the cases you'll read about when it says the dog "activated" or "altered" five times on the property, even though nothing was found, and that's somehow used as evidence of something.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  That's hideous. Judges who allow that testimony should be impeached and disbarred, at a minimum.
  - vkou 4y ago
    I don't see why judges can't allow bunk testimony, the problem is that juries have been watching way too much CSI:Miami and don't believe any arguments brought up by the defense that forensic 'experts' are reading chicken entrails.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      For the same reason that a defendant may not be presented to the jury in handcuffs or in a prison uniform. Because we humans are not able to return to a blank slate, free from biases imparted by information later learned to be false. For methods that are known to be useless, the jury shouldn't be asked to perform the impossible.
  - 4y ago

asveikau 4y ago

> (yes, I occasionally indulge in true crime, sue me!) Sounds like civil court rather than criminal.

levi_n 4y ago

"2biteencryption", name checks out

ghastmaster 4y ago

Similarly, handler beliefs affect scent detection dog outcomes to at least some degree as indicated in this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/ > No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect > Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations. > The overwhelming number of incorrect alerts identified across conditions confirms that handler beliefs affect performance. Further, the directed pattern of alerts in conditions containing a marker compared with the pattern of alerts in the condition with unmarked decoy scent suggests that human influence on handler beliefs affects alerts to a greater degree than dog influence on handler beliefs I found this to be very telling. It at the very least warrants more study. At the worst and in my opinion, warrants elimination of dog scent detection as the sole factor in a search.

rozab 4y ago
Check out this article from the National Detector Dog Association - 'The Double-Blind Attack'. These people seriously don't believe in science. https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/ https://nndda.org/the-double-blind-attack/
- ghastmaster 4y ago
  Wow! > Results in confusion and frustration in the canine – As stated previously, under doubleblind testing, the determination of the team’s accuracy cannot be made at the time of the alert. Therefore, to provide or withhold a reward from the canine under such a condition can result in confusing and frustrating the canine, which will lead to an increase chance of incorrect responses. Juxtapose that with the real world. I am not an expert but I sincerely doubt that K9s in airports get treats every time they correctly identify a illicit source. That is why they are trained constantly(I presume). Testing for one hour or one day will likely not have an effect on the long term ability of the dog to correctly sniff illicit sources. The NNDDA article is addressing the "double blind attack", which in my opinion is their way of redirecting from the notion that the K9s should not be used as a gold standard to ascertain probable cause. I would have to think more on the subject to comment on reasonable suspicion. If they truly believed in the idea that handlers are benign, they would embrace the double blind process.

bee_rider 4y ago

I would be fascinated to know how many and to what extent police techniques that appear to stretch believably are really tools to perform parallel reconstruction and get around shady sources of evidence.

rnk 4y ago
Probably a lot of them. The US justice system has a lot of good things, but parallel reconstruction, constantly using the easiest way to get info even if it is illegal. Of course the latest thing is spying on all of us either through apps on our phones or just asking the phone company directly.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

The entire industry, yes industry, of "expert witnesses" is murky.

xorcist 4y ago
Not just murky. Surf around and you can find companies offering these types of experts as a service. These experts are often experts in a surprisingly wide variety of fields, too.

Jenda_ 4y ago

> But the humans who testify on the dogs' behalf have a cult-like behavior about what the dogs can realistically detect, and how they interpret the dogs behaviors. There was a scandal here in .cz regarding forensic odorology using dogs, as a report came out where the authors basically found out they were unable to test it, because the dog-operators either did not understand what is a double-blind experiment, or they even actively sabotaged it. It is then implied that when they do the identification for real, they are not blind to who the suspect/control is. (report, unfortunately only in Czech: https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop.pdf https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop....; google translate: https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop-google-translate.pdf https://jenda.hrach.eu/f2/salamoun-testovani-pachovych-stop-... )

rnk 4y ago
It's clear that this resistance to being reasonably tested is because the handlers are obviously influencing the dogs. It's freaking irritating. A lot of that is drug war bs. I thought only us law enforcement would be resistant to evaluation.
- Huh1337 4y ago
  The more "system" you have the more often you'll hear "sorry, but that's just how the system works" and nobody will ever be able to (or want to) do anything about the problem. And there's a lot of system around here in EU. Applies to healthcare, social care/security and of course police as well.

macrael 4y ago

I did volunteer search and rescue for a bit and people were split on weather dogs were even useful in that context either. Some people thought they were indispensable and some thought they were useless.