How well could a dog pick out the scent of a single person in a pool of carnage?

I'm writing about a world that predates most modern forensic techniques, and I am looking for some old-fashioned methods of sleuthing that would have been available at around the 1850-1900.

In one scene, there is a massive explosion that results in a lot of blood and dead bodies. I'm looking for a plausible explanation for how my protagonist, who was present (and bleeding) at the scene of the crime, was tracked back to her home a day after the fact after no one knew she had been there and no one saw her leaving.

I need a reality check on whether dogs could have possibly been used to do this back then, specifically:

• Could a dog follow the trail of a person who had some of their own blood on the bottom of their shoes, even if it was a day old?

• Could a dog pick out the scent of a single person in the rubble of a collapsed building with ~30 bleeding/dead people around, or would so many scents confuse it? In other words, could a dog deduce the scent of a single person even if it were mixed with so many others, or would it have to have smelled them all separately?

• What about if it already knew their smell, say by smelling something they touched? Would it be able to tell that the scent of a certain human corresponded to the scent of that person's blood? (i.e. Does your blood smell like "you"?)

• If not, is there maybe something other than blood that a dog might be able to track better? Something that could have been available (but not too common) roughly around Victorian England?

The solution needn't necessarily be dog related--it's just all I can think of at the moment that wouldn't be anachronistic! Non-canine solutions from that time period equally welcome.

Edit: Dogs are way more impressive than I thought they were! Now I'm glad I picked my username.

posted about 7 years ago

Dog‭

1 reputation 1 0 0 0