What evidence would confirm a cadaver dog alert?

[Mr Gray]

I'm not sure what Grime and Harrison were expecting as corroborating evidence but one thing is certain, if she did turn up alive it can't have been madeleine's cadaver the dogs were alerting to.

If her remains were found within a couple of kilometres of the apartment would that corroborate the alerts?

Maybe there is still the possibility of her wandering and then being hurt  then picked up then killed.  So the body is still not linked with a dead Madeleine being in the apartment.

I find it tricky from all angles.  Maybe a confession is the only fool proof corroboration.

But a confession can only come from the guilty parties, so if they are innocent where is the confession going to come from.  Is there someone else who could confess?

In one of his statements Harrison mentions the dogs looking for Maddie's remains

[Mr Gray]

Have you ever thought what evidence would confirm an alert?

Over and over we get told the alerts mean nothing unless they are corroborated.

So would you all tell the forum what you would accept as corroborating evidence?


I'll add part of another post I made on the topic:
"We know their reliability depended on the finding of corroborating evidence at the location.

But Madeleine had been living at that location so finding her DNA there was never going to be enough.

In fact finding her blood there was unlikely to be enough, for a kid can get a bleeding nose and that doesn't mean she died.

Does the corroborating evidence have to be found at the site of the alert.  They don't actually say that do they.  So if her body was found at another location would that be corroborating evidence?"

Cerebro spinal fluid with a match to Maddie would have been pretty strong evidence  if found in the apartment

[Brietta]

The passage of time, as you say, makes death probable. The dog alerts in 2007 suggested the same outcome. They also suggested a connection between her death and the apartment she was staying in.

Tell that to Natascha Kampusch who was kept prisoner in a cellar for eight years or Elisabeth Fritzl who was kept prisoner in a cellar for twenty eight years.

However ... I am getting absolutely nowhere in asserting that Martin Grime, throughout and after the operation in Luz has stressed that the relevance of the dog indications is in direct correlation to the forensic results.

Please allow me to quote from the question and answer session from Martin Grime's rogatory interview in which his answers make a nonsense of what you have stated and the professional opinion expressed by him that the alerts mean nothing without forensic confirmation.

Snip

Q :: :: 'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''

A :: :: Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.



Q :: ::  'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''

A :: ::  The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)
It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes. (Not the dog or it's handler)



Q :: ::  'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.

A :: :: The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'.
Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm


I do not see how Martin Grime could possibly have made the situation any plainer. 
It was understood perfectly by the Policia Judiciaria under coordinator Rebello.
The Portuguese prosecutors also understood it.

In my opinion a cadaver dog alert can only be confirmed by forensic testing perhaps coupled with an absolute bucketload of other evidence.
In my opinion and in the opinion of Martin Grime ( see his caveats), the PJ and prosecutors none of that is applicable to apartment 5A.
So you are mistaken far enough to be off the wall as far as your interpretation of the nothingness of the dog indications in 5A are concerned.

[G-Unit]

Tell that to Natascha Kampusch who was kept prisoner in a cellar for eight years or Elisabeth Fritzl who was kept prisoner in a cellar for twenty eight years.

However ... I am getting absolutely nowhere in asserting that Martin Grime, throughout and after the operation in Luz has stressed that the relevance of the dog indications is in direct correlation to the forensic results.

Please allow me to quote from the question and answer session from Martin Grime's rogatory interview in which his answers make a nonsense of what you have stated and the professional opinion expressed by him that the alerts mean nothing without forensic confirmation.

Snip

Q :: :: 'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''

A :: :: Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.



Q :: ::  'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''

A :: ::  The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)
It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes. (Not the dog or it's handler)



Q :: ::  'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.

A :: :: The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'.
Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm


I do not see how Martin Grime could possibly have made the situation any plainer. 
It was understood perfectly by the Policia Judiciaria under coordinator Rebello.
The Portuguese prosecutors also understood it.

In my opinion a cadaver dog alert can only be confirmed by forensic testing perhaps coupled with an absolute bucketload of other evidence.
In my opinion and in the opinion of Martin Grime ( see his caveats), the PJ and prosecutors none of that is applicable to apartment 5A.
So you are mistaken far enough to be off the wall as far as your interpretation of the nothingness of the dog indications in 5A are concerned.

I completely understand that without corroborating evidence the alerts are not evidence. I reserve the right, however, to express my opinion which matches that of the dog handler's;

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[Robittybob1]

Cerebro spinal fluid with a match to Maddie would have been pretty strong evidence  if found in the apartment

Being mainly water that would normally be found fresh in the first 24 hours I'd imagine.
So yes did they have findings from the forensic examination we hadn't heard about yet?

One thing that could have been known was whether any of the Tapas 9 had scratches on them.  Kate talks about the dog bite to her right leg on Thursday.  Did the wound look like a dog bite? 

In a lot of murders there are signs of a struggle, there can't have been any disturbance, as GA tends to the accidental death scenario.

Getting the body would have been the best bet of solving what the body died from.  Either alive or dead and if dead what did she die from?
Cell phone tracking seems to be very important today.

Did any of the Tapas friends including the phones of Jez and his wife, Raj and his mate ever ping off other cell phone towers that night or next morning?  Do they still have the data for the everyone in the village that night?

[Robittybob1]

Tell that to Natascha Kampusch who was kept prisoner in a cellar for eight years or Elisabeth Fritzl who was kept prisoner in a cellar for twenty eight years.

However ... I am getting absolutely nowhere in asserting that Martin Grime, throughout and after the operation in Luz has stressed that the relevance of the dog indications is in direct correlation to the forensic results.

Please allow me to quote from the question and answer session from Martin Grime's rogatory interview in which his answers make a nonsense of what you have stated and the professional opinion expressed by him that the alerts mean nothing without forensic confirmation.

Snip

Q :: :: 'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''

A :: :: Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.



Q :: ::  'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''

A :: ::  The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)
It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes. (Not the dog or it's handler)



Q :: ::  'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.

A :: :: The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'.
Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed.
The signals of an alert are only just that.
Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm


I do not see how Martin Grime could possibly have made the situation any plainer. 
It was understood perfectly by the Policia Judiciaria under coordinator Rebello.
The Portuguese prosecutors also understood it.

In my opinion a cadaver dog alert can only be confirmed by forensic testing perhaps coupled with an absolute bucketload of other evidence.
In my opinion and in the opinion of Martin Grime ( see his caveats), the PJ and prosecutors none of that is applicable to apartment 5A.
So you are mistaken far enough to be off the wall as far as your interpretation of the nothingness of the dog indications in 5A are concerned.

The topic of this thread is mentioned by Grime here "Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc. "

It expanding on his idea of "etc" that we are specifically looking at.

As a veterinarian by experience and a dog owner most of my life I struggle to understand what Grime is talking about in the first two of his answers.

"The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions."  You can't submit the dog's response to a forensic examination.

Maybe he is saying look and see if you can work out what the dog was sniffing before it made the response.  Misty did that in another thread and thought he had it wrong.  Is he warning us things aren't as clear cut as we are being told.  For that is an impossible to understand answer IMO

second answer from above:
"A :: ::  The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation.
In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations.
(For example the key fob in the hire car)" 

What was all that?  Grime felt there was corroboration by the forensic testing (For example the key fob in the hire car)
That was Gerry's blood on a key fob not Madeleine's.  OK was he just happy that they had found blood; and it doesn't matter who's it was?

[Robittybob1]

I completely understand that without corroborating evidence the alerts are not evidence. I reserve the right, however, to express my opinion which matches that of the dog handler's;

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

That is alright then and I have to agree but without the evidence none of the responses can be said to be from Madeleine, in fact Grime notes the positive result showed blood on the key fob came from Gerry McCann.

[Mr Gray]

I completely understand that without corroborating evidence the alerts are not evidence. I reserve the right, however, to express my opinion which matches that of the dog handler's;

My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is  suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

Grime says it suggests.... Not that it is.... So he is not sure

[G-Unit]

That is alright then and I have to agree but without the evidence none of the responses can be said to be from Madeleine, in fact Grime notes the positive result showed blood on the key fob came from Gerry McCann.

Even if Madeleine's blood had been confirmed as present in the apartment by the FSS that wouldn't prove anything except that she bled at some point. It would have been quite different if her blood had definitely been found in the hire car I expect.

[Robittybob1]

Even if Madeleine's blood had been confirmed as present in the apartment by the FSS that wouldn't prove anything except that she bled at some point. It would have been quite different if her blood had definitely been found in the hire car I expect.

There are two or more options
1.  Blood and cadaver alerts found separately
2.  Blood and cadaver alert in the same area.

I think they would be viewed differently.

[Robittybob1]

Grime says it suggests.... Not that it is.... So he is not sure

Up to the degree of certainty he knows his dogs are capable of from his training exercises, was it high 90% range?

[Mr Gray]

There are two or more options
1.  Blood and cadaver alerts found separately
2.  Blood and cadaver alert in the same area.

I think they would be viewed differently.

it wouldnt be known if there was blood and cadaver in the same area as the cadaver dog could be alerting to blood

[Robittybob1]

it wouldnt be known if there was blood and cadaver in the same area as the cadaver dog could be alerting to blood

I know that is what Grime is reported to have said, but he wasn't questioned on that point, so it remains unconfirmed IMO.

[Mr Gray]

I know that is what Grime is reported to have said, but he wasn't questioned on that point, so it remains unconfirmed IMO.

I dont agree...logic dictates if both dogs alert at the same spot it could just be blood and no cadaver odour

[Robittybob1]

I dont agree...logic dictates if both dogs alert at the same spot it could just be blood and no cadaver odour

Impasse then.