Amaral and the dogs

[Mr Gray]

For you ferryman and those others who ignore evidence, knowledge and logic which doesn't suit your agenda.


'   Specialist dogs are demonstrably reliable.

In the Oesterhelweg et al 1998 study, it was demonstrated that the overall accuracy of the dogs they tested was 98%

Controlled studies like these are important as they are able, amongst other things, to identify false negatives and positives, something which is very difficult to do in the field. In the Zapata case, for example, the judge originally excluded the dog evidence as he decided that in tests conducted, where no alert had been signalled by the dog, no human had gone over the ground and checked there was nothing there for the dog to find. He therefore declared these ''false negatives'', which is nonsense. Hence studies which identify genuine false positives and negatives are vital.

Dogs trained to detect chemical changes in urine consistent with bladder cancer are able to do so with greater accuracy than laboratory tests, a pattern repeated with dogs trained to detect other medical problems. Dogs can alert to the presence of numerous malignant changes, possibly as a result of necrosis associated with the tumour, and can even signal to people with epilepsy that a seizure is imminent.

Humans do have these abilities - they are just nowhere near as pronounced as in dogs. Experienced nurses quickly learn to detect certain bacterial wound infections by their distinctive odour, for example.

If a dog gives an alert, it is alerting to the scent. The scent may be residual, and there may be no remains present to find, but is that a false alert? No, of course it isn't. It is alerting to something which was present and has now gone.

Because it is not possible to completely eliminate the risk of false positive alerts and unconscious signalling by handlers, an uncorroborated alert is unlikely to be considered sufficient to present in evidence, but may still add to the weight of circumstantial evidence.

The twisting and whining by McCann supporters, and by the McCanns themselves who have made some outrageous statements about Cadaver dogs in general and Mr Grime in particular, does them no favours.

The 'coconut shell' debacle is another example of this hysteria. ''Eddie found a coconut!'' they shriek.
No.

Eddie alerted to the ground. A forensic anthropologist identified a piece of what looked like it might be human skull. This is not uncommon, as if you field walk any ploughed field in the uk you are likely to find two things - medieval pottery and pieces of ancient human bone. Subsequent tests suggested it was probably a piece of seed pod or shell, but Eddie alerted to the ground, or earth adherent to the shell, not the shell itself.

The dog alerts in PdL provided what Redwood would have called ''an investigative opportunity''
It will be interesting to see if, should another suspect ever emerge, the McCann supporters will be so keen to dismiss multiple uncorroborated alerts from their property   '

what evidence am I ignoring...there is none re the dogs...after 8 years you and others still do not understand the truth.

You continue to simply copy posts from other forums...can't you compose any yourself..



it is a fact that Grime has never confirmed that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour... if Grime cannot no one else can...you simply want to avoid the real evidence...Grime's statement.... because it does not fit with your preconceived mindset

[ferryman]

However, Decision 13 of the Search Policy Book also makes reference to the Ground Penetrating Radar confirmation of anomalies under the floor and ‘dog indications’

Where the dog barked, they searched.

[stephen25000]

That view would not seem to be borne out by the inquiry:
3.10.2
It is apparent from DCO HARPER’s policy book entries relating to the search of Haut de la Garenne that the rationale he developed to justify the search (in particular the full scale dig inside the premises) is based upon historic accounts from witnesses of varying reliability. However, Decision 13 of the Search Policy Book also makes reference to the Ground Penetrating Radar confirmation of anomalies under the floor and ‘dog indications’

3.10.8
On 11 February 2008, a string of e-mails between the States of
Jersey Police Forensic Service Manager,
X , and DCO HARPER, reflect X attempts to persuade him to search the inside of Haut de la Garenne. DCO HARPER is adamant in his reply that they will not search that area as ‘there is not a shred of intelligence or evidence to suggest that anything untoward took place in any of the rooms. We would be ‘fishing’.
3.10.9
It appears to this Inquiry that the only additional information obtained by DCO HARPER after that point, when he was so adamant that the search should not take place, was the opinion of a builder who conducted work on the building in 2003 and held a contrary view to a pathologist who, in 2003 when bones were found at Haut de la Garenne, classified them as animal rather than human. It cannot be ascertained, in the absence of documentary records to assist us, why the view of this builder should have had such a profound effect on DCO HARPER, causing him to change his initial viewpoint.
Neither has any record been found as to whether this particular aspect of the decision was referred to CO POWER for consideration.
3.10.10
It seems more likely to this Inquiry, that CO POWER felt that, against the political backdrop and suggestions of ‘cover up’ and concealment, there was no alternative but to search Haut de la Garenne with a view to bringing the rumours and speculation to an end. Operation Haven accepts that this legitimate objective must be taken into account when assessing the performance of the Chief Officer in respect of this facet of our Inquiry.

Indeed.

Cover up  allegations and whistleblowers strongly indicate police officers have covered up paedophilia.

[Mr Gray]

From davel earlier..............


''There is no confirmation from grime that the alerts were to cadaverine ..... In reality we do not have a clue what the alerts were to''

and a response from another poster to davel, in addition to my earlier ones.

'  Well, you clearly don't. Grime's dogs were not trained to alert to Cadaverine. Cadaverine is a volatile compound which is just one of the molecules which contributes to cadaver odour.

His dogs were trained to alert to cadaver odour. Therefore, a positive alert signals the presence of cadaver odour.

It is possible to ''collect'' a scent from the air and analyse the constituent molecules but this was not attempted here'

Grime does NOT agree

[Mr Gray]

Indeed.

Cover up  allegations and whistleblowers strongly indicate police officers have covered up paedophilia.

they did in Portugal too...and probably in most countries in the world

[pathfinder73]

Irrelevant.

You can't ask a dog to switch off from that they are trained to detect unless you desensitise the dog to that scent.

Both Grime and Harrison make plain Eddie would react to blood.

Keela didn't detect blood on the clothes Eddie alerted to.

[pegasus]

Was it Holmes said something like "when you add two numbers together Watson, the number they add up to, no matter how surprising, must be the solution" ?

[Carana]

Where did you read that?

I was questioning whether it was possible and whether Grime had pointed it out or not, if so.

- Grime made a point of stating that Keela would only react to bodily fluids if mixed with blood, but he made no such remark about Eddie.

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

- He also stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood, but he makes no such remark about Eddie.

The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows. (Transcript 5A) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm


Re Keela and blood, and then a comment about Eddie:

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

[stephen25000]

they did in Portugal too...and probably in most countries in the world

Since when has a link to paedophilia been established, let alone proven in this case ?

[Mr Gray]

Since when has a link to paedophilia been established, let alone proven in this case ?

It hasn't

[Carana]

Collagen is found in mammals not coconut.



"One chamber contained a concrete bathtub splattered with blood."

Forensic scientists searching the cellars, where victims have told them they were taken to be abused, have already uncovered 65 milk teeth and up to 100 pieces of bone that they say appear to have been burned. An intact adenoid bone, from the ear of a child, has also been found, it has been reported.

https://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/

That is precisely the type of inaccurate reporting based on half-baked police leaks that some of us are referring to.

[mercury]

I was questioning whether it was possible and whether Grime had pointed it out or not, if so.

- Grime made a point of stating that Keela would only react to bodily fluids if mixed with blood, but he made no such remark about Eddie.

Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm

- He also stated that Keela would only react to the physical presence of blood, but he makes no such remark about Eddie.

The second dog that we've seen work today is the crime scene dog Keela. She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there physically for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something. At this point over here where the victim recovery dog has indicated, as you saw on the video, the crime scene dog had actually given me what we call a passive indication where she freezes in this spot here which would indicate to me that there is some human blood there. She will find blood that's historically very old and she will find anybody's blood, any human blood, which is important to make sure that everybody knows. (Transcript 5A) http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm


Re Keela and blood, and then a comment about Eddie:

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm

No, you were not questioning if it was possible that Eddie could alert to residual blood scent, but were questionng if Grime or Harrison had told any of the PJ that he could, and if they did, it was likely they decided to plant a plaster or sock with blood on it in the flat before the dogs were brought in!

At least that is the way I read your post. So, do you redact the suggestion that Eddie alerts to residual blood scent? Because I cant find any evidence for it.

[Carana]

No, you were not questioning if it was possible that Eddie could alert to residual blood scent, but were questionng if Grime or Harrison had told any of the PJ that he could, and if they did, it was likely they decided to plant a plaster or sock with blood on it in the flat before the dogs were brought in!

At least that is the way I read your post. So, do you redact the suggestion that Eddie alerts to residual blood scent? Because I cant find any evidence for it.

Grime is talking about blood. Keela only reacts to the physical presence of it. Then, he states that Eddie may react to a scent source (still talking about blood).

Was this discussed in an informal briefing or not? There's no way of knowing.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent.

[stephen25000]

Grime is talking about blood. Keela only reacts to the physical presence of it. Then, he states that Eddie may react to a scent source (still talking about blood).

Was this discussed in an informal briefing or not? There's no way of knowing.

In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any 'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.

Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.

It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent.

What 'dead body' scent exactly ?

[Mr Gray]

What 'dead body' scent exactly ?

Read Grime's statement