Strange Witness Statements

[Carana]

Was he not a Victim Recovery Dog?  Does "victim"= dead body?

That does seem to be the euphemistic term. Otherwise, there are search and rescue dogs  (for living victims).

[sadie]

That does seem to be the euphemistic term. Otherwise, there are search and rescue dogs  (for living victims).

Yep it has been posted on here at least four times now in the past couple of months.

And Gunit, I have kept recovering the document especially for you.

Haven't you bothered to read it?   
Or are you simply time wasting?


Eddie was initially trained as a Recovery dog.  The sort that goes out after landslides and finds buried living people, but also alerts to anything related to the living body .  Later he was trained as a Cadavar dog.  To alert to the odours that a dead body and things associated with the dead body give out



He cannot be detrained.

Therefore he could be alerting to living odours or  to the odours given out by a dead body.



It was necessary to have Forensic evidence to determine exactly what he was alerting to.



THere was NO conclusive Forensic Evidence.    THerefore we cannot say what he was alerting to.



Do you follow now?

[G-Unit]

Yep it has been posted on here at least four times now in the past couple of months.

And Gunit, I have kept recovering the document especially for you.

Haven't you bothered to read it?   
Or are you simply time wasting?


Eddie was initially trained as a Recovery dog.  The sort that goes out after landslides and finds buried living people, but also alerts to anything related to the living body .  Later he was trained as a Cadavar dog.  To alert to the odours that a dead body and things associated with the dead body give out



He cannot be detrained.

Therefore he could be alerting to living odours or  to the odours given out by a dead body.



It was necessary to have Forensic evidence to determine exactly what he was alerting to.



THere was NO conclusive Forensic Evidence.    THerefore we cannot say what he was alerting to.



Do you follow now?

I apologise if you have posted some evidence, but I honestly haven't seen it. Search and Rescue dogs find living people. Eddie was, as far as I can ascertain, a Victim Recovery dog. They find dead bodies.

I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD)......

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

[pathfinder73]

We are not talking about Tito and Miuzzy.  We were talking about Eddie.  Please do NOT twist the words to obfuscate.

Eddie is the dog that alerted in the Mccann case in the early days.

As you well know Eddie was trained first to alert to living persons and their scents. 

Dogs cannot be detrained.  Eddie will always alert to living persons and their scents.   He will also alert to his newer training of finding Cadavar scents.


Anything that Eddie alerts to could be living odour or it could be the scent of death.



No forensics .. so


... We just dont know which it was ... a living scent ... a cadavar scent .... or a pork scent [cos he was trained on pork]


You cannot hang, draw and quarter the Mccanns on such non evidence.  And on such propaganda.

Eddie, Tito and Muzzy do the same job (all dogs can alert to blood but they are used to find dead bodies). They come and find evidence in possible missing person murder cases to bring closure. Mark Harrison investigated the theory that Maddy was murdered so he brought Grime's dogs in to investigate that theory.

[mercury]

I apologise if you have posted some evidence, but I honestly haven't seen it. Search and Rescue dogs find living people. Eddie was, as far as I can ascertain, a Victim Recovery dog. They find dead bodies.

I have trained and handle two operational specialist search dogs:
'Eddie' is a 7-year-old English Springer spaniel dog who is trained as an
Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD)......

'Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood and
stil born decomposing piglets. The importance of this is that the dog is
introduced to the scent of a decomposing body NOT FOODSTUFF. This
ensures that the dog disregards the 'bacon sandwich' and 'kebab' etc that is
ever present in the background environment. Therefore the dog would
remain efficient searching for a cadaver in a café where the clientele were sat
eating bacon sandwiches.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

This is correct. There is no mention of "Eddie" in any official document that I have seen to date that states he was ever used to find alive people. Not in Grime's profile, not in Harrisons report, not in any NPIA document, not in any FOI request reply.Maybe it exists. The only place I read anything like it was in some internet poster's posts, someone called Poacher which IIRC lordpookies here quoted from another forum, but that is hearsay?

[Mr Gray]

This is correct. There is no mention of "Eddie" in any official document that I have seen to date that states he was ever used to find alive people. Not in Grime's profile, not in Harrisons report, not in any NPIA document, not in any FOI request reply.Maybe it exists. The only place I read anything like it was in some internet poster's posts, someone called Poacher which IIRC lordpookies here quoted from another forum, but that is hearsay?

there's a lot of hearsay in this case

[pathfinder73]

And some amusing gaffs.

[Lace]

Has the statement by the family staying in 5a before the McCann's where they say they locked their front door and left the key in it,   yet the cleaner still managed to get in,   been discussed?

[Lace]

And some amusing gaffs.

Philomena could have been about to say anything,   'with the man who took her'   'with a new family'    they were thinking all sorts at the time.    Why do people jump to the conclusion that the McCann's knew where she was,  that Philomena knew where she was it's ridiculous.     Have you seen the photo's of the cousins and aunties crying their hearts out?

[Benice]

Philomena could have been about to say anything,   'with the man who took her'   'with a new family'    they were thinking all sorts at the time.    Why do people jump to the conclusion that the McCann's knew where she was,  that Philomena knew where she was it's ridiculous.     Have you seen the photo's of the cousins and aunties crying their hearts out?

There is no evidence against the McCanns - so sceptics have resorted  to poring over and dissecting every word anyone has ever said in an effort to prove the McCanns are guilty.      When even 'slips of tongues' or 'hesitation' are actually promoted as 'proof' of guilt   - then all that does IMO is prove what desperate and ridiculous levels some sceptics will go to.    Way beyond credulity IMO.

[pathfinder73]

There is no evidence against the McCanns - so sceptics have resorted  to poring over and dissecting every word anyone has ever said in an effort to prove the McCanns are guilty.      When even 'slips of tongues' or 'hesitation' are actually promoted as 'proof' of guilt   - then all that does IMO is prove what desperate and ridiculous levels some sceptics will go to.    Way beyond credulity IMO.

Police are suspicious. If you change your story between statements they want to know the reason why. If witnesses contradict each other about a visit they want to know why. They don't think it's normal.

[Benice]

Police are suspicious. If you change your story between statements they want to know the reason why. If witnesses contradict each other about a visit they want to know why. They don't think it's normal.

[/b]

Yes they do think it is normal that there will be 'contradictions' and 'discrepancies in the various statements from witneses.  The police understand the fallibility of memory and how different people will have different recollections of the same events.

Quote

In a crime situation memory is influenced by many factors such as stress, the presence of a weapon and even just the desire to help police solve the crime.

"Police know how fallible the memory can be," says Steve Retford, a former head of the investigative skills unit at GMP and now specialist interviewing adviser with the force.

"They also know this is usually not through mischievousness on the part of the witnesses, but through stress and shock."

Take the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, shot at Stockwell Tube station in 2005 by police who mistook him for a suicide bomber.

Eyewitnesses said he had vaulted a ticket barrier when running away from the police. In fact it was later shown by CCTV that Mr Menezes had walked through the barriers, having picked up a free newspaper, and only ran when he saw his train arriving.
End quote

ALSO

Quote from DC Ferguson (JT's rogatory statement)

4078    “You know, we can take a statement from people, if an incident happened outside and there was a group of people watching it, everybody would have a different take on what they had seen”.
Unquote.

 It is also known that witnesses can later remember something which they had previously forgotten.  That is why everyone knows what ''having your memory jogged'' means.   It is also normal for policemen to ask witnesses to contact them straightaway if they later remember anything else.   

You appear to think that none of any of the above can possibly apply to the McCanns or their friends.   Inexplicable.

Some sceptics will of course continue to delude themselves that discrepancies must mean that lies are being told because that is what they want to believe   - but fortunately professional policemen know that is not the case.   In fact they would be more likely to be suspicious if there were NO discrepancies as that would suggest collusion. 

[pathfinder73]

So are you saying something happened on the visit and that's why they are contradicting each other because of the stress? Can't remembering one only wearing a towel and whether they were inside or outside and for how long?

[Brietta]

So are you saying something happened on the visit and that's why they are contradicting each other because of the stress? Can't remembering one only wearing a towel and whether they were inside or outside and for how long?

In a situation where witnesses were word perfect, everything slotting neatly into place, everyone sticking to a script and never deviating ... that would give professional police investigators reason to be suspicious ... for the simple reason that as has been explained to you, everyone sees an incident in different ways and have different memories of it.

[pathfinder73]

In a situation where witnesses were word perfect, everything slotting neatly into place, everyone sticking to a script and never deviating ... that would give professional police investigators reason to be suspicious ... for the simple reason that as has been explained to you, everyone sees an incident in different ways and have different memories of it.

LOL Can't remember one was wearing only a towel and nothing else. Are you serious? Can't remember being inside or outside? One said 30 seconds. Everything they said contradicted each other. Nobody would believe that is possible.