8(0(* our australian media are on a roll with pat i agree with everything in this article none of it isnt true IMO im proud of our australian media
8(0(* our australian media are on a roll with pat i agree with everything in this article none of it isnt true IMO im proud of our australian mediaWhat is this with the double negative? "none of it isn't true" Is not true = false. "none of it is false" Is that what you meant?
Everything in this article has been discussed and discredited many times
Pat and the Australians are way behind the times
what i mean is what the resporter wrote all of it is true they cant be sued by gerry and kate they used facts
The dogs indicated.
FACT.
That is why you and others, not even counting the McCann's are fixated with the dogs, and that says everything.
The dogs indicated.
FACT.
That is why you and others, not even counting the McCann's are fixated with the dogs, and that says everything.
what i mean is what the resporter wrote all of it is true they cant be sued by gerry and kate they used factsIt might be true but it wasn't very well written.
Everything in this article has been discussed and discredited many times
Pat and the Australians are way behind the times
It isn't me who has started another dog thread
The alerts are not evidence of a cadaver in the apartment
The DNA recovered is not evidence Maddie was ever in the car
Those are the facts
The article is total BS
The dogs indicated.
FACT.
That is why you and others, not even counting the McCann's are fixated with the dogs, and that says everything.
That is what you would like the world to believe.
Trouble is, the dogs indications don't go away.
That is what you would like the world to believe.Yes and what do they tell you?
Trouble is, the dogs indications don't go away.
i think our australian media are being very brave publishing all this it is good imoI think the editor or reporter needs to spend a month on the forum before attempting to hash an article on the McCanns. It was worse than reading Wikipedia.
the thing is our australian media are not emotionally involved like the uk media/supporters it shows too doesnt it
That is what you would like the world to believe.
Trouble is, the dogs indications don't go away.
the thing is our australia media are not emotionally involved like the uk media/supporters it shows too doesnt itYou must admit it is more exciting on the UK Justice forum. That article was really boring IMO.
and what do the indications tell us?Seems like the same question I asked?
and what do the indications tell us?
They possibly indicated the presence of a body.
As you well know.
Neither corroborated or dismissed.
They possibly indicated the presence of a body.Yes you are right - They possibly indicated the presence of an unnamed, uncorroborated body.
As you well know.
Neither corroborated or dismissed.
so it is possible there was a body in 5a.....but no confirmation...no evidence of a body in 5a
what use is that
The only tangible thing in this case.
before it gets derailed lets get back to the topic? wouldnt most parents reaction to dogs alerting to Dna be of shock and fear ? not saying the dogs are wrong like the mcanns did or telling everybody they can that the dogs had no meaning etc? i do find that strange ??
before it gets derailed lets get back to the topic? wouldnt most parents reaction to dogs alerting to Dna be of shock and fear ? not saying the dogs are wrong like the mcanns did or telling everybody they can that the dogs had no meaning etc? i do find that strange ??Unless you are like the McCanns knowing that Madeleine had not died so the cadaver odour could not have been from her.
Indeed Carly, it would.He wasn't allowed to finish the sentence so we will never know what Gerry was wanting to say about the dogs.
Remember when Mccann tried to introduce the dogs indications in the Portuguese Trial , and the Judge had none of it.
Now, if the indications were of no concern, then why did he try to bring it into the case ? &%+((£
Unless you are like the McCanns knowing that Madeleine had not died so the cadaver odour could not have been from her.
He wasn't allowed to finish the sentence so we will never know what Gerry was wanting to say about the dogs.
Come of it.Well of course it must have been confusing for them when it seemed to be going against nature/science.
No matter the bluster of the McCann's, the alerts got to them.
Well of course it must have been confusing for them when it seemed to be going against nature/science.
'...going against nature/science.'
'...going against nature/science.'To them it would have seemed more like a conjurer's trick. How could there be cadaver odour in the car? How could there be cadaver odour in the bedroom when Madeleine was alive at 9:05 PM??? It was not usual to have this.
dogs are way above humans in smell etc they can smell things humans cantWell but they still can't say who's cadaver odour they are picking up.
To them it would have seemed more like a conjurer's trick. How could there be cadaver odour in the car? How could there be cadaver odour in the bedroom when Madeleine was alive at 9:05 PM??? It was not usual to have this.
Well but they still can't say who's cadaver odour they are picking up.
before it gets derailed lets get back to the topic? wouldnt most parents reaction to dogs alerting to Dna be of shock and fear ? not saying the dogs are wrong like the mcanns did or telling everybody they can that the dogs had no meaning etc? i do find that strange ??So what were the McCanns' reactions when they were told of the dog alerts?
Unless you are like the McCanns knowing that Madeleine had not died so the cadaver odour could not have been from her.
He wasn't allowed to finish the sentence so we will never know what Gerry was wanting to say about the dogs.
Apparently Gerry and Kate's reaction to being told about the dog alerts didn't make sense. In order to discuss this reaction we need to know exactly how they reacted when being told. someone? anyone?Kate mentions her reaction in her book.
The dogs indicated.
FACT.
That is why you and others, not even counting the McCann's are fixated with the dogs, and that says everything.
Indicated to what?"Indicate" is a behaviour displayed by the dog. It is related to what they are trained to find.
before it gets derailed lets get back to the topic? wouldnt most parents reaction to dogs alerting to Dna be of shock and fear ? not saying the dogs are wrong like the mcanns did or telling everybody they can that the dogs had no meaning etc? i do find that strange ??
"Indicate" is a behaviour displayed by the dog. It is related to what they are trained to find.
Kate McCann says she was crying hysterically when the Police questioned her about 100% DNA being found belonging to Madeleine, Kate McCann was fearing her child was dead. Then they showed her video of the dogs and she realised this was what they were basing their accusations on. Well if the McCann's knew they were innocent of any wrong doing in 5a, then why would they react in shock and horror at the video of the dogs? Kate McCann I believe was quite relieved when she saw the dog video and where the Police were getting their 'evidence' she knew that there was no evidence as nothing had happened to Madeleine in 5a, she had been abducted.
Kate mentions her reaction in her book.As I don't currently have access to my copy of the book perhaps you or someone could tell us what she says on first being told of the dog alerts then we can discuss whether her reaction makes sense or not.
No one knows what the dog indicated to Rob.
It matters not what any of us think. What does matter is how highly the PJ and OG regard the dogs and from the fact that OG requested cadaver dogs be present when investigating the mound in PDL some time ago I think we can guess it is very highly.
It matters not what any of us think. What does matter is how highly the PJ and OG regard the dogs and from the fact that OG requested cadaver dogs be present when investigating the mound in PDL some time ago I think we can guess it is very highly.That's like saying the Met highly regard the capabilities of shovels or earth movers or metal detectors. The dogs are a tool, nothing more nothing less. They are extremely useful but a) they're only as good as their handlers and b) they are not infallible and don't always find what they are looking for or find stuff that is irrelevant.
Kate McCann says she was crying hysterically when the Police questioned her about 100% DNA being found belonging to Madeleine, Kate McCann was fearing her child was dead. Then they showed her the videos of the dogs and she realised this was what they were basing their accusations on. Well if the McCann's knew they were innocent of any wrong doing in 5a, then why would they react in shock and horror at the video of the dogs? Kate McCann I believe was quite relieved when she saw the dog video and where the Police were getting their 'evidence' she knew that there was no evidence as nothing had happened to Madeleine in 5a, she had been abducted.
That's like saying the Met highly regard the capabilities of shovels or earth movers or metal detectors. The dogs are a tool, nothing more nothing less. They are extremely useful but a) they're only as good as their handlers and b) they are not infallible and don't always find what they are looking for or find stuff that is irrelevant.
Kate McCann says she was crying hysterically when the Police questioned her about 100% DNA being found belonging to Madeleine, Kate McCann was fearing her child was dead. Then they showed her the videos of the dogs and she realised this was what they were basing their accusations on. Well if the McCann's knew they were innocent of any wrong doing in 5a, then why would they react in shock and horror at the video of the dogs? Kate McCann I believe was quite relieved when she saw the dog video and where the Police were getting their 'evidence' she knew that there was no evidence as nothing had happened to Madeleine in 5a, she had been abducted.
We have been here thousands of times before,Lace. Unfortunately as the old saying goes ... "None so deaf as those who will not hear."(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/SveQspUHnwI/AAAAAAAAC-I/eYwdNenAxac/s400/SunCrazyRelyOnDogs.jpg)Original Source: SUN: FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 05 2008
EXPERTS say sniffer dogs can play a vital role in fighting crime ' but warn it is 'madness' to rely on their findings.
The animals are used to lead police to evidence, but do not provide evidence themselves.
One expert told The Sun: 'The dogs can identify traces of blood, but it's crazy to draw major conclusions just from what they find.
'Any evidence they find should be used as a starting point. It's madness just to rely on the findings of the sniffer dogs.'
Handler Martin Grimes, who worked with his dogs on the Maddie case, admitted the animals offered no more than 'a guide'.
He said: 'They can identify traces of blood and detect the smell of a decomposing body, but that is as far as they go.'
Martin said his dogs Keela and Eddie would only give him an indication when they find what they are trained to detect.
Unreliable
He said: 'Blood could be invisible to the naked eye, but Keela will detect it. It doesn't matter if it's hundreds of years old.
'Eddie smells for the scent of a decomposing human body. He can detect any part of a human body that is decomposing ' hair, bones, flesh, anything.
'The smell of a decomposing body is very difficult to get rid of. It can easily be transferred to clothing and on to a person.'
A spokesman for the McCanns said: 'Dog alerts can be unreliable. The handler himself makes it clear in the police report that such alerts are meaningless without corroborative evidence. There was no such evidence.
'Gerry and Kate are not interested in dwelling on mistakes that were made. They and their investigation team wish to focus entirely on finding Maddie.'
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/19-Sep8/SUN1_05_09_2008.htm
It was time to move on from the mistaken interpretation and reliance placed on whatever excited Eddie's excitable attention in the McCann apartment as soon as the forensic results entered the public domain.
Quote
‘The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver’
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver.
He is not trained for ‘live’ human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of ‘fresh blood’.
They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being. Martin Grime
Quote
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. Martin Grime
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
What is so difficult to understand about that?
No need the above post is answer enough.Nope, like Kate I can watch the video and form an opinion.
It would seem you appear to know better than the FBI what constitutes a 'good' dog handler.
Nope, like Kate I can watch the video and form an opinion.
Yet for all your copying and pasting, the alerts remain.
And they tell us nothing
They still remain and typing your mantra won't change my opinion, ever.
It seems the alerts by the dogs in 5a have not interested SY.
In light of the cadaver alerts, has it ever been explained why the PJ didn't immediately make the parents arguidos in early August?
They have to gather all the evidence first and get questions to ask them etc.
What date were the 100 days interviews when they denied they were suspects in the case? We have a good working relationship with the Portuguese etc.
"On 8 August, without waiting for the results from Birmingham, the Portuguese police called the McCanns to a meeting in Portimão, where Guilhermino Encarnação, Polícia Judiciária regional director, and Luis Neves, coordinator of the Direcção Central de Combate ao Banditismo in Lisbon, told them the case was now a murder inquiry."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann
Kate has every reason to discredit the dog alerts. If the dog was alerting to a cadaver that was removed before 10pm and cadaver odour takes around 90 minutes to develop then that places the McCanns right in the frame. Not sure, however, why you, a self-professed novice when it comes to cadaver dog training, feels adequately knowledgable to claim the dog searches 'unprofessional'.It's my opinion based on what I witnessed. It was an opinion obviously shared by Kate. We may of course both be completely wrong and what is shown on the video may in fact be an example of the pinnacle of cadaver dog handling but that's not what it looked like to her, or to me. Hence her reaction, which was not strange at all taking this into account.
MCCANN CIRCUS. I don't think you should let suspects know you are on to them until you can make an arrest. Prout didn't see it coming. He thought he was finally cleared LOL.So why did they make Murat an arguido so early on then...? &%+((£
Nope, like Kate I can watch the video and form an opinion.
So why did they make Murat an arguido so early on then...? &%+((£
Like you and Kate I watched the Levy copyrighted videos and immediately formed an opinion.
Yet you had no prior knowledge of how a dog search was supposed to be carried out.You don't need any prior knowledge to form an opinion based on seeing with one's own eyes the handler skipping past other cars in seconds and then standing in front of the one plastered in McCann posters and waiting patiently for several minutes for the dog to finally alert after it repeatedly ran back and forth like a demented hound of the Baskervilles.
No one knows what the dog indicated to Rob.I still think what I said is 100% scientifically correct. I don't say what the dog(s) indicated.
AS they should. But still unconfirmed.
"He (Mark Harrison) gets to work immediately, supported by the Portuguese PJ and the investigators from Leicester and Scotland Yard."
"These [particular] dogs have been used successfully many times by Scotland Yard and the FBI."
AS they should. But still unconfirmed.
And I bet they found Gerry's Ask the Dogs comment to be hilarious 8(>((
its actually quite subtle but has gone right over your head
I call it taking the piss when he was laughing when he said it.
why do you think he said ...ask the dogsI think Gerry had already spoken to the dogs himself earlier and knew the answers. That is as long as the dogs don't lie and are consistent in what they say. One bark for "yes" two barks for "no". Only trouble is asking Eddie, he never barks for anything other than a cadaver alert.
Like you and Kate I watched the Levy copyrighted videos and immediately formed an opinion.
Of course you did.
What expertise do you have in dog handling , and where else have you witnessed forensic dog handling on site ?
Is so called cadaver scent as transferable as we have been told it is?
For example if one took a top which had come into contact with a dead body and placed it in a bag containing an uncontaminated top ~ an uncontaminated cardigan ~ an uncontaminated vest ~ and uncontaminated socks ... every single item of clothing in that bag would be subject to cross contamination by the highly transferable cadaver scent emanating from the contaminated top.
That is what we have been told ... and Martin Grime has explained as much in his police statements. Reminds me a bit about the warning videos showing the ease with which a kitchen can be contaminated when preparing chicken.(https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/chickensplatter.png?w=240)
Every single item in that bag into which the contaminated top had been placed ~ not to mention the bag itself ~ would now reek of cadaver scent and every item including the bag would provoke a cadaver dog to display its trained response.
Kate McCann's clothing was present in the rented villa while the dog was performing its checks.
The dog did not alert.
It was only when the clothing had been removed from the villa where the dog ignored it and taken to the gymnasium where it was spread out on the gymnasium floor that the dog alerted to ...
Quote
* in two pieces of clothing belonging to KATE HEALY
* in a piece of clothing of the minor MADELEINE End quote
The rest of the clothing which had been in the box was ignored ... as was the box itself.
- How is it possible that clothing cleared in the villa inspection produced an alert after transportation to another place?
- How is it possible that despite the known contaminant properties of 'cadaver scent' only three items from the same box and not all the contents of the box were cross contaminated?
- How is it possible there was no dog reaction to the box the three items had been carried in?
- What was the rationale in transporting the clothing contents of the villa where they had not achieved a reaction to the gymnasium where they did?
In my opinion based on the Levy edited videos I have seen it is evident that the fact that nothing connected to the dog's visit to Praia da Luz makes much sense at all.
The way the searches were set up was unprofessional, the fault for that lies primarily with the PJ IMO.
Because the dogs alerted?No! I am referring to the way clothes were boxed up and laid out on the floor of a carpark, the way the McCanns car was parked up by a police officer who could have contaminated the car, the way the car was left plastered in McCann posters, you know that sort of thing.
Because the dogs alerted?I have previously proven that the alert on the cuddle cat and Sean's top were ruses designed to make Kate confess. They had no evidence value only shock value.
The absence of Madeleine is circumstantial evidence of abduction.
"You don't know if the dogs didn't alert to a body." Double negative again.
I still don't understand the fascination people have with the dogs, they are tools to find forensic evidence for processing. Yes the dogs alerted, they did their job in that capacity but didn't identify areas of forensic value. So essentially, what they were brought in for in this case didn't advance the investigation.
The dogs might have had more chance of success had less time elapsed between Madeleine's disappearance and their deployment.Is there a more reliable source than dogs.co.uk that this offer was made by the British and rejected by the Portuguese?
Unfortunately by the time the British dogs were called in there was little chance of finding Madeleine if that was even
a priority as by that time I think the focus of the police investigation was firmly fixed on finding aevidence against a suspect.
Help refused for sniffer dogs
Thu, 24 May 2007
Recently, the police in Portugal declined the offer of help from a British sniffer dog team to find missing 4 year old Madeleine McCann.
Senior British Police officers have encouraged Portuguese teams to use the skills of sniffer dogs that are trained in the UK, as they are believed to be the best.
British dogs, including a Spaniel associated with the National Police Improvement Agency, undergo advanced tracking techniques that can track human scent from several miles. It is known that these dogs can track scents that are as old as 28 days.
A senior UK police officer said, "It is an absolute scandal — time is fast running out for this little girl."
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world."
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance."
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
He added that these dogs are exception at what they do and they can identify blood on a weapon which has been wiped off.
http://www.dogs.co.uk/news/2007/May/Help-refused-for-sniffer-dogs.html
Is there a more reliable source than dogs.co.uk that this offer was made by the British and rejected by the Portuguese?
Terribly sorry but the SUN will have to do ...
Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
The dogs include a spaniel whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of blood on a weapon even after it has been scrubbed clean.
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id157.htm
"The dog can detect things you can't see, even if it's a crime scene where someone had cleaned up blood. If there's a drop of blood that's been wiped up and you can't see it, the dog will find that. Then you bring in your forensic staff and let them concentrate on that spot so they can quickly determine if there's blood evidence in the house."If the body had lain there for some time, Buster would alert to blood drained from it, even if cleaned up.
Paul Dotsie - Buster's handler
K9 CRIME-FIGHTER: BUSTER THE 3-LEGGED DOG FINDS BURIED BODIES
https://crimewatchdaily.com/videos/0-dmok8ljg/
Baloney they alert to dried blood and blood dries very quickly.
When would I use a Human Remains Detection Dog?
Human Remains Detections dogs are best used for cases like buried bodies, aged disarticulations, old homicide or suicide cases, bone searches, blood evidence, residual scent, crime scenes, building searches, and vehicle searches.
What are the qualities and skills of a Human Remains Detection Dog?
The Human Remains Detection Dog is trained to alert on residual scent along with other faint scent sources like dried blood.
http://www.csst.org/faq.html
Morse also alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's room, and police discovered blood on Bianca's pillow.
Halverson also tested a blood sample from a pillow, which matched Bianca's DNA profile.
Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains."
Morse alerted Grime to the presence of the odor of decomposition in the back seat and trunk of a silver Grand Marquis. Keela later screened the car and did not alert Grime to the presence of human blood.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
Specifically, the dogs are trained to smell decomposition, which means they can locate body parts, tissue, blood and bone. They can also detect residue scents, meaning they can tell if a body has been in a place, even if it’s not there any more.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/08/cadaver-dogs-trained-to-smell-death
But only if trained.
Morse, for example, wasn't.
From Grime's rogatory interview:
The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'?
Grime's answer.
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.
Morse was trained by our expert dog trainer Martin Grime and built up the same outstanding reputation as his other dogs;
Rex A. Stockham, forensic canine program manager for the FBI, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
"I'm aware of no false positives for Morse," he said. "We've never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it's been shown to be incorrect."
Detroit News (link now deleted)
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4720-guilty-lane-guilty-of-murdering-his-daughter-bianca-jones-after-court-hears-cadaver-dog-evidence-from-martin-grime
Morse was trained by our expert dog trainer Martin Grime and built up the same outstanding reputation as his other dogs;
Rex A. Stockham, forensic canine program manager for the FBI, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
"I'm aware of no false positives for Morse," he said. "We've never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it's been shown to be incorrect."
Detroit News (link now deleted)
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4720-guilty-lane-guilty-of-murdering-his-daughter-bianca-jones-after-court-hears-cadaver-dog-evidence-from-martin-grime
I don't see how it is possible to say that, unless Morse always found a body. Did he?
You do not need a body to prove a murder case because if you hide a body police believe it's murder.
They can also detect residue scents, meaning they can tell if a body has been in a place, even if it’s not there any more.
In October 2013, a jury in Illinois convicted Aurelio Montano, 58, of the first-degree murder of his wife, despite the lack of a body, due in part to evidence provided by cadaver dogs who detected the scent of human remains on a rug.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/sep/08/cadaver-dogs-trained-to-smell-death
Man gets life for murder of wife, who disappeared 24 years ago
A former Aurora resident was sentenced Monday to life in prison for the murder of his wife more than two decades ago in one of the first cases in Illinois where so-called "cadaver dogs" played a key role in obtaining a conviction.
Aurelio Montano, 58, already serving a life term for a drug-related double murder in 1996, was formally sentenced in Kane County court for killing his wife, Maria Guadalupe Montano, who was 35 when she disappeared in July 1990.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-02-10/news/chi-man-gets-life-for-murder-of-wife-who-disappeared-24-years-ago-20140210_1_aurelio-montano-maria-guadalupe-montano-maribel-barajas
On 23 February 2012, the advocate depute led evidence from a Lothian and Borders Police constable who told the court that they had enlisted the help of specially trained cadaver dogs from South Yorkshire Police to search the offices where David Gilroy and Suzanne Pilley worked. The dogs were specially trained to smell for blood and human remains. The court was told that the dogs, springer spaniels, had identified three areas of interest; one in the basement area of the offices, and two in the boot of David Gilroy's silver Vauxhall Vectra.[14]
David Gilroy, was arrested and charged with her murder. He was found guilty by majority verdict on 15 March 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment. The judge ordered him to serve a minimum of 18 years in prison. The case is controversial because the prosecution obtained a murder conviction without a body. The body of Suzanne Pilley has never been found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Suzanne_Pilley
Gilroy drove to Lochgilphead for work the day after Ms Pilley went missing, but the journey took around two hours longer than usual. Analysis of fuel consumption suggested that 124 miles of Mr Gilroy's journey were unaccounted. He also collected black bin bags from Lochgilphead.
An examination of Gilroy's car revealed vegetation and soli on the underside, said to be consistent with driving off-road.
Gilroy made 49 calls and sent 400 texts in a month to Ms Pilley. But they stopped on the morning she disappeared suggesting he knew she was dead.
A specialist cadaver dog picked up the scent of a body in the boot of his silver Vauxhall Vectra despite it appearing to have been sprayed with air freshener which Gilroy bought on the lunchtime of the day Ms Pilley went missing.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13414425.Exclusive__Convicted_killer_s_family_reveal_dossier_they_say_proves_innocence_over_Suzanne_Pilley_murder/
Morse was not introduced to blood as a discrete scent and rewarded for finding it.
That was the department of Keela, with whom Morse was teamed up by Grime.
Hardly just the evidence of a Cadaver Dog.
Morse does the same job as Eddie or Buster or any trained human remains dog and they ALL alert to blood. Keela only alerts to blood. End of.
"A cadaver dog should alert on human blood. He has no way of knowing whether or not the blood in the car is from hauling a corpse or hauling a bleeding patient to the Emergency Room. It's decomposing human tissue. That's all he cares about. He did his job. How it got there is someone else's job."
http://www.farmfreshforensics.com/csi_blog/view/355/cadaver_dogs
You should provide cites Ferryman before posting any further nonsense.
Morse was not trained to the scent of blood as a discrete scent.
And the case you link to comes under the precepts of Scottish law, where, unlike in England, uncorroborated cadaver-dog alerts are accepted as evidence.
This video of how you train a dog to find drugs is useful.
It emphasises the point that you introduce the dog to the scent and reward the dog for finding that scent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUkdT2G21P8
That's a drug dog so not relevant.
Martin Grime makes it clear:
"The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being."
Cadaver dogs are brought in to find evidence of death. All cadaver dogs alert to dried blood like Eddie.
Martin Grime does, indeed, make it clear that he introduced Eddie to blood as a discrete scent and rewarded the dog for reacting to blood.
Which is why Eddie would react to blood as a discrete scent.
Grime skipped that step with Morse.
Cite?
Morse trained with Eddie and this was 2 years after the McCann case.
FBI consultant Martin Grime told the High Court in Glasgow he and his springer spaniels Eddie, Keela and Morse were called in by police in the hunt for Bob Rose, who disappeared on the island of Sanday last June.
Eddie, who is trained to detect dead bodies and was used in the McCann case and the Soham murders inquiry, reacted when he was taken to sand dunes at Sty Wick on June 24.
Mr Grime said: "His normal reaction is to bark. On this occasion he started to dig."
The body of "Black Bob" Rose was later found at the spot.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sniffer-dog-used-in-search-for-madeleine-1050817
You have already provided the cite.
Your post "Grime skipped that step with Morse."
Provide a cite?
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,” and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
There is (literally) no point in two dogs both reacting to the same substance.
Morse was brought in to work with a dog trained to react to nothing except blood.
decomposing human remains includes blood. Keela comes in to pin-point unseen blood and rule it out of the cadaver dog alert if she doesn't alert.
"Morse was not trained to react to blood."
Cite?
D'Andre Louis Lane was the father of Bianca Jones
"Morse also alerted Grime to the odor of decomposition in Bianca's room, and police discovered blood on Bianca's pillow.
Halverson also tested a blood sample from a pillow, which matched Bianca's DNA profile."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
Why don't you provide a cite Sadie? Oh......you can't 8(0(*
Cadaver dogs alert to dried blood from a live human being but they are not brought in to find live humans. They are brought in to find evidence of death.
You have not provided a cite for Morse. Blood from a missing person who disappeared under mysterious circumstances is incriminating.
Blood found in quantities compatible with loss of life, maybe.It could prove or suggest he (the blood donor) had been there. e.g if Maddie's blood had been found in Murat's villa, that would be significant no matter how small a quantity found.
But small traces?
Nah!
Doesn't prove anything at all.
Morse was not trained to react to blood.
Part of the controversy of D'Andre Lane's conviction for the murder of his (I think!) step-daughter was that there were no retrievable remains.
But judges held the conviction, nonetheless, to be safe.
It could prove or suggest he (the blood donor) had been there. e.g if Maddie's blood had been found in Murat's villa, that would be significant no matter how small a quantity found.
Morse was trained to detect blood (a part of human remains) so you are wrong.
Lane is facing mandatory life in prison if convicted. The case relies on circumstantial evidence and is using a cadaver dog named Morse, who is handled by forensic canine expert Martin Grime.
“You have no way of telling what Morse responded to,”said Johnson, noting the positive detection hasn’t been connected to Bianca’s body or anyone else’s. “You don’t know if it was a positive or negative response.”[/u]
Grime conceded a determination is usually made when something is found.
“The corroboration would normally be you finding a cadaver, bone or human blood that I could see,” he told Johnson, adding that the dog has never given a false response.
Rex A. Stockham, forensic canine program manager for the FBI, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/bianca-jones-trial-of-dandre-lane/
Morse was trained to detect blood (a part of human remains) so you are wrong.
Lane is facing mandatory life in prison if convicted. The case relies on circumstantial evidence and is using a cadaver dog named Morse, who is handled by forensic canine expert Martin Grime.
“You have no way of telling what Morse responded to,”said Johnson, noting the positive detection hasn’t been connected to Bianca’s body or anyone else’s. “You don’t know if it was a positive or negative response.”
Grime conceded a determination is usually made when something is found.
“The corroboration would normally be you finding a cadaver, bone or human blood that I could see,” he told Johnson, adding that the dog has never given a false response.
Rex A. Stockham, forensic canine program manager for the FBI, also testified about Morse on Wednesday. He said the English springer spaniel is regularly tested for proficiency, and while no dog is perfect, Morse has been accurate.
“I’m aware of no false positives for Morse,” he said. “We’ve never had any case yet where the dog has responded and it’s been shown to be incorrect.”
http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2014/04/20/bianca-jones-trial-of-dandre-lane/
An absolutely nonsensical statement
How can any alert be shown to be incorrect
It may well not be incorrect but it can't be proved to be incorrect
And it may well be correct but it can't be proved to be correct
Who believes Mark Harrison wrote, with a straight face, that the villa the McCanns moved into well after a full scale police and civilian search for Madeleine had been mounted would be (sic) an obvious place to look for Madeleine's concealed and deceased remains?I wonder if they checked the freezer?
Anyone?
Harrison certainly wrote it.
I wonder if they checked the freezer?
Both dogs alerted behind the sofa. Any investigator worth anything after seeing the crime scene photos of the sofa can't miss the possible meaning of what happened to Madeleine that night.
Look at the crumpled curtain suggesting the sofa was quickly pushed back against the wall to cover up where the dogs later alerted.
This is not rocket science. It is common sense when you bring evidence together.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/15/article-1387281-022B287D00000578-772_468x307.jpg)
rowley...there is no evidence as to whether maddie is alive or dead
everythinf is your opinion based on your misunderstanding of the dog alerts
SY were digging in PDL with dogs - they have found zero evidence of an alive Maddy who disappeared 10 years ago. Of course they say there's a possibility she is alive - they said the same about Kate Prout.
Both dogs alerted behind the sofa. Any investigator worth anything after seeing the crime scene photos of the sofa can't miss the possible meaning of what happened to Madeleine that night.
Look at the crumpled curtain suggesting the sofa was quickly pushed back against the wall to cover up where the dogs later alerted.
This is not rocket science. It is common sense when you start to bring evidence together.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/15/article-1387281-022B287D00000578-772_468x307.jpg)
I don't find it rocket science to imagine that people had looked behind the sofa in case she was there then pushed it back.
What did Amaral's initial forensic team miss behind the sofa then?
They didn't use the dogs until later and dogs find evidence that human forensics can miss and that fact is proven.Both Eddie and Keela alerted behind that sofa.
That crumpled curtain at the crime scene revealed a glimpse and the later dog alerts confirmed those suspicions i.e. something happened behind that sofa IMO.
Both Eddie and Keela alerted behind that sofa.Therefore the alert was to desiccated blood from a bleeding person. You couldn't tell from the dog alert alone if they were bleeding while dying, recently dead or survived the injury.
Therefore the alert was to dessicated blood from a living person.
How strange it would be if there were no spots of blood anywhere in an apartment as old as 5A
Soz you got it wrong, Pathfinder.
Both Eddie and Keela alerted behind that sofa.
Therefore the alert was to dessicated blood from a living person.
How strange it would be if there were no spots of blood anywhere in an apartment as old as 5A
Soz you got it wrong, Pathfinder.
Why?
Grime spent more time with his dogs in apartment 5a than he did in any other apartment, just as, in the nominal 'inspection' of 10 vehicles, the only vehicle of slightest interest to humans was the Renault Scenic with the find Madeleine stickers in the back.
You know, the only inspection of them all for which Grime wore a haz-mat suit.
The video of which he was handed for promotional purposes in his (further) free lance career.
Which he used to promote himself when he applied for the gig at Haut de la Garenne.
That accrued him the thick-end of £100,000 for about 12 weeks' work.
They didn't use the dogs until later and dogs find evidence that human forensics can miss and that fact is proven.
That crumpled curtain at the crime scene revealed a glimpse and the later dog alerts confirmed those suspicions i.e. something happened behind that sofa IMO.
Are you suggesting that dessicated blood would have been found in the other apartments if only they had given Eddie more time in them? I think the scent is either there or it isn't, time isn't the issue.
Eddie was very interested and eager in 6A. He very quickly alerted in the main bedroom. Once he had done that a thorough inspection was needed. He then alerts behind the sofa. Keela is used next, and she also alerts behind the sofa.
Eddie was taken into the other apartments but he showed none of the eagerness or interest that he showed in 5A, so Keela wasn't used.
You don't understand. Keela only searches where Eddie has alerted. If Eddie doesn't alert to the cadaver scent he is trained to find then Keela is not used.
Eddie (rip!) was trained to alert to blood or cadaver scent.
He had no mechanism for distinguishing between the two.
Eddie (rip!) was trained to alert to blood or cadaver scent.
He had no mechanism for distinguishing between the two.
I presume you can prove that.
Disprove it.
How do you know Eddie, could not distinguish between the two ?
You don't understand. Keela only searches where Eddie has alerted. If Eddie doesn't alert to the cadaver scent he is trained to find then Keela is not used.
How do you know he could?
Morse was not trained to alert to blood.
And seeing as we have only sketchy details of Eddie's service and know, certainly only that his tally of operational deployment in service with SYP was 37, not over 200, as claimed by Grime, there is no data to answer your question.
You are the one claiming he couldn't.
Now back it up.
Otherwise you are stating , yet again, opinion as fact.
All cadaver dogs alert to blood. If you can provide evidence of Eddie alerting in a missing person case who has turned up alive then I'm all ears?
If he could distinguish why would you need a second dog
Proved by deduction again
There were two dogs.
Can you provide evidence of any forensic examination by dogs, when only one dog was employed, in the search for a body ?
If conducting an experiment/search, would you rely on just one source of 'information' ?
Try again, davel.
There were two dogs.
Can you provide evidence of any forensic examination by dogs, when only one dog was employed, in the search for a body ?
I have lost no argument at all.
Now provide examples of cases searching for a body, when only one dog is used.
I thought so.why should I
So you can't find of forensic employment of dogs with only one dog employed ?
But Lane's attorney, Terry Johnson, raised questions about the dog's ability to detect decomposition during his cross-examination.
"You have no way of telling what Morse responded to at any location?" Johnson asked Grime.
"He gave us a positive response," Grime said. "The corroboration would normally be to find a cadaver or bone or blood that you can see."
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-detroit-news/20121004/281706906902738
If he could distinguish why would you need a second dog
Proved by deduction again
9 April 2004
SPECIALIST search dogs from South Yorkshire, trained to track down body parts and human remains, have found the body of a suspected murder victim in Northern Ireland.
The Victim Search Team of Pc Martin Grime, with springer spaniel Eddie and Pc John Ellis with border collie Frankie, were called in because of their unique ability to find missing bodies.
They successfully found the body of 65-year-old Attracta Harron from Strabane, who went missing last December, buried in 18 inches of clay on the banks of a stream.
A man has since appeared in court charged with her murder. Members of the victim's family visited the scene to meet the South Yorkshire officers and their dogs.
Pc Ellis said: "Her relatives asked if they could meet us. It was something they wanted to do it and it appeared to comfort them."
Police in Northern Ireland, including a team of divers, had conducted extensive searches for Mrs Harron, but had been unable to trace her.
"If it had not been for the dogs I doubt she would have been found, we would have missed her," said Pc Ellis.
The dogs, trained by Pc Ellis, are the only two in Britain capable of locating human parts, blood and body fluids in small quantities and are specially trained to seek out buried remains.
They can trace human remains that have been buried for years.
In March, 2002, they played a major role in locating the body of Barnsley murder victim 21-year-old Shane Collier. Even though his body had been cut up into parts and buried five months earlier, the dogs found them in a remote woodland in Cumbria. The South Yorkshire police dogs Frankie and Eddie and their handlers now work as part of the special search unit operation by the National Crime and Operations Faculty.
They will be travelling back to South Yorkshire next week to join the search for missing Sheffield man Paul Haywood.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/whats-on/out-and-about/dogs-find-body-parts-of-murder-victim-1-320914
so in that case grime used two cadaver dogs....much more sensible
Grime is, of course, talking about dogs not trained to work with the US forensic canine program
Dogs on that program were teamed up with dogs (such as Keela) trained to react, alone, to blood and dogs (such as Morse) trained to react to decomposing human remains other than blood.
Morse was tested by the FBI and working for them so what are you talking about? Cadaver dogs alert to blood because it's part of a human corpse.
You cannot provide any evidence of Morse not alerting to blood and that says it all.
Grime testified as an expert in the training and employment of cadaver dogs. According to Grime, he is a full-time contractor for the FBI. Grime worked with Morse, a dog “trained to search for and detect the odor of decomposing human remains,”
and Keela, “trained to search for and locate specifically human blood.” Grime testified that there was no methodology to test the dogs' responses when there is no recoverable material, and that the odor of decomposition may transfer if a person touches a dead body and then touches something else.
Two dogs were deployed AND two handlers, still more sensible.
it would depend on the area to be covered, I expect. I watched a fly on the wall documentary the other night about Natalie Hemming - a very interesting programme. At one point they were searching for her body but it was a fairly large area. Along came the dog handler with his one trusty spaniel. The body was found later by a walker however.
A very interesting point was when the suspect was asked if he killed her, put her in his car, drove around for a couple of hours, got rid of her and then returned home to tidy up. He argued that it was impossible because he behaved normally with his three children the morning after, but he was guilty. Those arguing that people wouldn't behave normally after a trauma please take note. They can and they do.
take note....in this case the parents loved their children...this man obviously didnt care for his victim so the comparison is ridiculous
it would depend on the area to be covered, I expect. I watched a fly on the wall documentary the other night about Natalie Hemming - a very interesting programme. At one point they were searching for her body but it was a fairly large area. Along came the dog handler with his one trusty spaniel. The body was found later by a walker however.
A very interesting point was when the suspect was asked if he killed her, put her in his car, drove around for a couple of hours, got rid of her and then returned home to tidy up. He argued that it was impossible because he behaved normally with his three children the morning after, but he was guilty. Those arguing that people wouldn't behave normally after a trauma please take note. They can and they do.
I think no-one knows what is going on inside a family except those involved. I have learned that every relationship is unique. Sometimes people say they love someone but their actions tell a different story in private. Love means different things to different people. The man cared obsessively about his partner but he thought he was losing her and his children.
Grime has been criticized since his involvement in the case for blatantly obvious reasons.
The McCann's and some supporters are concerned about the
Dogs indications.
Yet if they don't matter, then why the concern.
Possibly because sceptics place so much store in their indications and seem to base their belief in the Mccann's involvement solely on the doggies barking. imo.
You might do better not to group sceptics as one homogeneous lump.... 8(>((
We have done this before haven't we a few days ago?
Grime has been criticized since his involvement in the case for blatantly obvious reasons.
At last, something we can agree on.
The McCanns and some supporters are concerned about the Dogs' indications.
Reliability of the dogs' indications, yes.
Yet if they don't matter, then why the concern.
Possibly because lotsa sceptics place so much store in their indications and seem to base their belief in the Mccann's involvement solely on the doggies barking. imo.
Grime has been criticized since his involvement in the case for blatantly obvious reasons.http://loudounnow.com/2016/06/02/day-9-of-castillo-murder-trial-hones-in-on-phone-records/
The McCann's and some supporters are concerned about the
Dogs indications.
Yet if they don't matter, then why the concern.
Precisely the point is that they do matter, because if the dogs' indications were to be eliminated from the equation (as Mark Harrison said they should be) there would be nothing left as a basis to accuse the McCanns.
Precisely the point is that they do matter, because if the dogs' indications were to be eliminated from the equation (as Mark Harrison said they should be) there would be nothing left as a basis to accuse the McCanns.
Yet all this in the files.
Those files aren't going to go away.
The dogs’ handler has submitted a separate report regarding the performance of the dogs (see appendix 4). However, it must be stated any such indications without any physical evidence to support them can not have any evidential value, being unconfirmed indications. Additionally I consider no inference can be drawn as to whether a human cadaver has previously been in any location without other supporting physical evidence.
Mark Harrison said:
"The searches described in this document were limited to certain locations. Therefore, it can not be said that the concealed remains of Madeleine McCann are not within the village of Praia da Luz. During the first week of her disappearance the GNR tasked personnel to search through the village for the scenario of Madeleine still being alive. This involved visiting dwellings and business premises and a physical search of the refuse bins. A full scale re-search of the village is not currently advised due to its speculative nature and resource implications. Should new information or intelligence identify a specific location then it would be recommended to re-search it adopting the similar model of reconnaissance followed by a search using several detecting methods as detailed in this report to provide a high assurance of detection for a concealed body." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Fast forward to 2014 and SY's search for a concealed body in PDL as suggested in MH 2007 report.
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
Mark Harrison said:
"The searches described in this document were limited to certain locations. Therefore, it can not be said that the concealed remains of Madeleine McCann are not within the village of Praia da Luz. During the first week of her disappearance the GNR tasked personnel to search through the village for the scenario of Madeleine still being alive. This involved visiting dwellings and business premises and a physical search of the refuse bins. A full scale re-search of the village is not currently advised due to its speculative nature and resource implications. Should new information or intelligence identify a specific location then it would be recommended to re-search it adopting the similar model of reconnaissance followed by a search using several detecting methods as detailed in this report to provide a high assurance of detection for a concealed body." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Fast forward to 2014 and SY's search for a concealed body in PDL as suggested in MH 2007 report.
Grime has been criticized since his involvement in the case for blatantly obvious reasons.The McCanns would not be concerned about the alerts
The McCann's and some supporters are concerned about the
Dogs indications.
Yet if they don't matter, then why the concern.
The McCanns would not be concerned about the alerts
You are quoting opinion as fact
The McCanns are intelligent enough to understand the value of the alerts
As am I
The alerts have no value
Therefore the alert was to desiccated blood from a bleeding person. You couldn't tell from the dog alert alone if they were bleeding while dying, recently dead or survived the injury.
Every apartment of that age would have spots of blood around. So if both eddie and Keela alerted to dessicated blood in one of the other apartments, you would consider that a red flag?
I appreciate that the dog alerts could be from the blood of someone dying, but by a multitude of odds it would be far more likely to be from a minor wound to a living person, such as a mosquito bite or minor accident.
NOTHING at all points to Madeleine dying in that apartment ... apart from the suspicions of a man who has a record of lying .... and who "scores" if he gets a result.
I would suggest that given the fact that both dogs alerted, which means the blood from a living person (even years ago) and that there are no reasons for suspicion of The Mccanns, no other Police Officer other than Amaral would have given the alerts any attention after a cursory examination of the situation. They would have just been logged.
AIMHO
Part of case files
That matters not a jot
The alerts are evidence of nothing
Not even circumstantial evidence
The alerts by specially trained dogs are evidence which requires corroboration with forensics before its significance can be determined. If the alerts weren't evidence they would not have been recorded and documented by the police in the way they were. Again the distinction between evidence and proof should be recognised.
Every apartment of that age would have spots of blood around. So if both eddie and Keela alerted to dessicated blood in one of the other apartments, you would consider that a red flag?
I appreciate that the dog alerts could be from the blood of someone dying, but by a multitude of odds it would be far more likely to be from a minor wound to a living person, such as a mosquito bite or minor accident.
NOTHING at all points to Madeleine dying in that apartment ... apart from the suspicions of a man who has a record of lying .... and who "scores" if he gets a result.
I would suggest that given the fact that both dogs alerted, which means the blood from a living person (even years ago) and that there are no reasons for suspicion of The Mccanns, no other Police Officer other than Amaral would have given the alerts any attention after a cursory examination of the situation. They would have just been logged.
AIMHO
As early as 1st June 2007 the NPIA's profiler recommended that the PJ should investigate Madeleine's family and friends. It was the NPIA's search adviser who recommended using Grime's dogs. None of it would have happened if the UK hadn't pushed it's way into the case. It's not correct to lay all the blame on Amaral. Encarnacao and Neves were in charge, not him.When they said friends should that have included Jez Wilkins for he kept emphasising his friendship to the McCanns. Did the tracker dogs go through his apartment?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
The alerts by specially trained dogs are evidence which requires corroboration with forensics before its significance can be determined. If the alerts weren't evidence they would not have been recorded and documented by the police in the way they were. Again the distinction between evidence and proof should be recognised.
evidence
ˈɛvɪd(ə)ns/Submit
noun
1.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
as the uncorroborated alerts do not support any proposition they are not evidence...that is PROOF that the alerts are not evidence
grime and Harrison have confirmed this
Evidence in a criminal police investigation is anything which is collected in the course of said investigation. It does not have to have a significance to be called evidence. Dog handler/expert Martin Grime did state that the cadaver and CSI dog alerts had no evidential reliability but they still exist as documented evidence and can be used as such if later corroborated by further findings.
Ive given a definition from a dictionary...could you show where your definition came from
according to the dictionary they do not constitute evidence..if they are corroborated they become evidence.
#how can something which has no value or reliability as evidence..be evidence..it cant
Evidence in a criminal police investigation is anything which is collected in the course of said investigation. It does not have to have a significance to be called evidence. Dog handler/expert Martin Grime did state that the cadaver and CSI dog alerts had no evidential reliability but they still exist as documented evidence and can be used as such if later corroborated by further findings.
A method previously employed on similar cases has been to use the below assets.
Deploy the EVRD to search the house and garden to ensure Madeleine McCann's remains are not present. The dog may also indicate if a body has been stored in the recent past and then moved off the property, though this is not evidential merely intelligence.
You are confusing evidence and intelligence.
Mark Harrison.
Inevitably over time there would have been specks of blood and other body fluids on furnishings, floors and walls of all the apartments, however, the dog alerts were restricted to 5a and given that a child had disappeared from that apartment, investigators were correct to be suspicious. Another coincidence possibly?so why didn't the dogs alert to any of the other apartments? These super efficient dogs with magnificent noses?
so why didn't the dogs alert to any of the other apartments? These super efficient dogs with magnificent noses?
Are you saying that in the other apartments there were no specks of blood, cos I dont believe that.
The truth of the matter, John, is that the dog/s were commanded to examine the Mccann apartment in minute detail.
Whilst the great injustice was that they were raced around the other apartments with indecent haste, as I suspect you will now remember. One could almost wonder if the other apartments were included with a cursory glance just to satisfy any accusations from the Mccanns/general public that they were not looked at.
The exercise was exactly like the exercise in the garage when the cars were inspected. All the emphasis on one car there, Eddie being commanded back repeatedly with loud raps. Eddie showed not an iota of interest in the Mccann car until called back, was it 4 times?
The other cars were just there for show, IMO. To make the inspection look bonafide to the casual observer, IMO. I wonder what would have happened had Eddie been repeatedly commanded back to one of those cars and Gerrys blood stained key had been in that?
Would there have been alerts in that car too?
Mind the alerts in the Mccann car were only to dessicated blood from a living person, as Keelas alerts proved. They could have been there months. No cadavar odour there ....
No Cadavar odour in the car ...... so just how did The "wicked" Mccanns manage to remove Madeleines "body" to Huelva, as Amaral claimed?
so why didn't the dogs alert to any of the other apartments? These super efficient dogs with magnificent noses?
Are you saying that in the other apartments there were no specks of blood, cos I dont believe that.
The truth of the matter, John, is that the dog/s were commanded to examine the Mccann apartment in minute detail.
Whilst the great injustice was that they were raced around the other apartments with indecent haste, as I suspect you will now remember. One could almost wonder if the other apartments were included with a cursory glance just to satisfy any accusations from the Mccanns/general public that they were not looked at.
The exercise was exactly like the exercise in the garage when the cars were inspected. All the emphasis on one car there, Eddie being commanded back repeatedly with loud raps. Eddie showed not an iota of interest in the Mccann car until called back, was it 4 times?
The other cars were just there for show, IMO. To make the inspection look bonafide to the casual observer, IMO. I wonder what would have happened had Eddie been repeatedly commanded back to one of those cars and Gerrys blood stained key had been in that?
Would there have been alerts in that car too?
Mind the alerts in the Mccann car were only to dessicated blood from a living person, as Keelas alerts proved. They could have been there months. No cadavar odour there ....
No Cadavar odour in the car ...... so just how did The "wicked" Mccanns manage to remove Madeleines "body" to Huelva, as Amaral claimed?
That was the point Sadie, the dogs didn't alert in any of the other apartments, just in 5a, which would rightly lead investigators to conclude they were dealing with a death contaminants in 5a. But then we know a former owner of 5a did die in hospital and it is not beyond the bounds of possibilities that some of his clothing or personal effects were returned to his widow in 5a and stored in a cupboard in the bedroom where Eddie alerted.And the reason why these super efficient [and yes they were, i believe] dogs didn't alert was because they were rushed around the other apartments at an indecent pace ... IMO
The blood detection dog (Keela) wasn't used in the other apartments because Eddie didn't alert in them.
And the reason why these super efficient [and yes they were, i believe] dogs didn't alert was because they were rushed around the other apartments at an indecent pace ... IMO
Eddie did alert to dried blood from living humans though. Were the other apartments so super-clean that no deposits of blood from occupants over the years remained?Of course they were, Misty ....
Good point fm but surely intelligence can also be evidence? The Oxford Dictionary defines evidence in part as signs or indications of something and that is exactly what the dogs alerts are.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evidence
In law, circumstantial evidence too is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact. Consequently a cadaver dog alerting to material objects could be inferred as them having been in contact with cadaver scent.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence
That was the point Sadie, the dogs didn't alert in any of the other apartments, just in 5a, which would rightly lead investigators to conclude they were dealing with a death contaminants in 5a. But then we know a former owner of 5a did die in hospital and it is not beyond the bounds of possibilities that some of his clothing or personal effects were returned to his widow in 5a and stored in a cupboard in the bedroom where Eddie alerted.
As for examining 5a in minute detail compared to the other apartments there is a very simple reason. If a dog is taken into an apartment and doesn't react at all it is withdrawn. If the dog becomes agitated and reacts then the handler knows to extent the search further. None of this is sinister, just tried and tested procedure which I'm sure ferryman will verify.
All the cars taken to the underground car park belonged to persons of interest in the case, they were all there for a reason. I will agree however that Eddie showed little interest initially in the McCann's hire car and was called back several times. In the end he did react and that reaction was corroborated by further forensic tests. The dog handler was at the time though totally ignorant of what the substance on the car's key fob was. It later being determined that it was the blood of Gerry McCann.
no....Harrison makes it quite clear that no inference can be drawn from the alerts....circumstantial evidence has evidentila value...therefore the alerts cannot be circunstantial evidence
No inference legally at the moment but they exist and could become very significant if a body is eventually found near the village.
tHis has been dealt with and explained several times.
The dog initially did not alert to anything in in 5a untill repeatedly being brought back to spots by grime...this did not happen in the other apartments. THis was noted by the pj and is in the files as they found it strange the way the dogs behaved....not alerting and then alerting when repeatedly being brought back...
harrison says no inference...not no inference legally...your post is pure speculation. Even if a body was found i dont see how it could be linked to the alerts in 5a...can you.
there simply was not enough time for cadaver odour to develop....if a body is found it will be th body that is significant,,...not the alert
The next point is that Maddie would have to have had an accident......died....and sufficient time elapsed for cadaver odour to develop....between 8.30 and 10....perhaps thats why SY dont see it as a viable scenario...the theory does not hold water
Having said that i think it was quite reasonable of grime to spend more time in 5a and call dogs back because if evidence was to be found thats where it would be. The fact is no evidence was found and its about time that was realised by posters here and we wouldnt still be talking about the alerts after 10 years
Maddie could have had a fatal fall and been carried off. She didn't need to lie in 5a for there to be cadaver odour present. Your inability to understand this is very worrying imo.
Try thinking outside the box with the blinkers off! 8(>((
Eddie did alert to dried blood from living humans though. Were the other apartments so super-clean that no deposits of blood from occupants over the years remained?
Scientists can't explain how these dogs do what they do, so armchair detectives have no chance. I don't know why people find it so difficult to accept that there was something in 5A which caused the dogs to alert. There was nothing in Murat's house or any of the other apartments which triggered that response.
There is certainly alot of hooha about alerts supporters claim ain't worth diddlysquat.
If they ain't worth diddlysquat why the hooha?
Mr Harrisons comment about no evidential value is only expert opinion and may be challenged by another expert.
Indeed.
If they are no value, why are some so concerned by them.
Not hard to work out.
There is certainly alot of hooha about alerts supporters claim ain't worth diddlysquat.
If they ain't worth diddlysquat why the hooha?
Mr Harrisons comment about no evidential value is only expert opinion and may be challenged by another expert.
The alerts are recorded in the case files.
They are not going away.
The files are there for people to read.
It isn't up to davel to other people what to think , or how to interpret the files.
People can do that for themselves, without any bias.
they are recorded as having no value...fine
I believe the term was "evidential reliability"...ie they were unreliable as evidence but evidence all the same.
People will decide for themselves how they interpret the files.
Don't forget that.
The files are there for people to read.
It isn't up to davel to other people what to think , or how to interpret the files.
People can do that for themselves, without any bias.
I believe the term was "evidential reliability"...ie they were unreliable as evidence but evidence all the same. Evidence does not have to have a value in order to become evidence. The police gather lots of evidence when investigating cases, after analyses are undertaken only a small part of that gathered is found to be significant. Point being, evidence can consist of many things both tangible and non tangible. The actions of suspects for example can be deemed to be evidence and thereafter documented as such.
your problem is that grime agrees with him and we havent heard an expert say otherwise..
it isnt just that...as many of these alerts cannot be verified one way or the other nothing can be proved
Trouble is that far too many who can choose not to.
Gerry in the tapas restaurant at the time of Kate's alert and also the time of the Smith sighting (it's in the files)
Provenance of Eddie's alert to the Renault Scenic known and innocent. It's in the files.
Eddie's 'alert' to cuddle cat bringing to an end Eddie's (previous) unblemished record of never alerting falsely (at least as claimed by Grime).
It's in the files.
The McCanns could not, reasonably, have been expected to foresee any interference with any of their children. It's in the files, written by the Portuguese prosecutors, summarising the whole content of the files.
How is that my problem ?. It does not affect my health or investments therefore it is no problem to me.
This forum is not trying the case so the opinions of Grime and Harrison cannot be put to any test, by this forum, that is relevant or carries weight.
i have given the dictionary definition of evidence and the alerts do not fulfil it...perhaps you could put a caveat....evidence of no value or reliability...doesnt sound too good does it
How is that my problem ?. It does not affect my health or investments therefore it is no problem to me.
This forum is not trying the case so the opinions of Grime and Harrison cannot be put to any test, by this forum, that is relevant or carries weight.
The word evidence has many meanings depending on context. I have already answered your earlier post. Unreliable evidence can quickly become reliable given the introduction of relevant forensics. I think Mr Grime explained all this previously.
As a reminder, yet again.
The case was shelved due to lack of evidence.
What happened to Madeleine was undetermined.
Opinions not withstanding.
when the alert is corroborated it becomes evidence...until then it has no evidential reliability or value
I never said they did.
People can make up their own minds for themselves.
absolutely...lack of evidence....
No, when it is corroborated it becomes proof.
Lack of evidence of abduction.
Yes, absolutely right.
No, when it is corroborated it becomes proof.
proof of what....
no evidence of death in the apartment
There is no evidence, which would support bringing anyone to court, on any of the possibilities.
no evidence of death in the apartment
So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?
So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?
So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?
I can only assume you cannot understand the terms of the judgement.
The whole idea of bringing a cadaver dog and a CSI dog to the Algarve at great expense was to look for signs of foul play. The theory being that the dogs will detect blood or cadaver scent associated with a missing child. When a find is made it designated evidence. If that evidence is then tested and found to be directly connected to the missing child by way of DNA profiling then allowing for other factors that evidence can become proof according to prosecutors that something untoward happened to the child before he or she went missing. Ultimately, a Court will decide if that proof is of sufficient quality to warrant a conviction in the absence of a body. There doesn't require to be a body for someone to be convicted, it all comes down to evidence and proof.
So why did the McCanns lose the libel trial?
As early as 1st June 2007 the NPIA's profiler recommended that the PJ should investigate Madeleine's family and friends. It was the NPIA's search adviser who recommended using Grime's dogs. None of it would have happened if the UK hadn't pushed it's way into the case. It's not correct to lay all the blame on Amaral. Encarnacao and Neves were in charge, not him.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-should-be-treated-as-suspects-brit-200689
Scientists can't explain how these dogs do what they do, so armchair detectives have no chance. I don't know why people find it so difficult to accept that there was something in 5A which caused the dogs to alert. There was nothing in Murat's house or any of the other apartments which triggered that response.
The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned. As are the DNA forensic tests which were inconclusive but did not exclude Maddie's DNA. As are the McCann's defensive reactions when questioned by the media. (Especially Gerry's disgusting "ask the dogs" response).
The fact that trained dog alerts are not accepted as forensic evidence does not mean they are not evidence against the McCanns. Dogs don't lie!
The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned. As are the DNA forensic tests which were inconclusive but did not exclude Maddie's DNA. As are the McCann's defensive reactions when questioned by the media. (Especially Gerry's disgusting "ask the dogs" response).You say "The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned." That is in your mind only.
The fact that trained dog alerts are not accepted as forensic evidence does not mean they are not evidence against the McCanns. Dogs don't lie!
You say "The dog alerts are damning evidence as far as I am concerned." That is in your mind only.
I don't think it is as clear cut as your post implies,
The NPIA'S profiler, Lee Rainbow, gave generic advice to the Portuguese police. The misunderstanding that he said anything other than that arises from Amaral's lawyer's interpretation of a confidential document during the libel trial.
Snip
His lawyer Antonio Cabrita, reading from a Portuguese translation of the previously- confidential report, said: 'The family is a lead that should be followed.
'The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statement might lead us to suspect a homicide. This is a lead that should be investigated.'
The lawyer added: 'Portuguese police had only considered the abduction theory. It was British police who said they must consider homicide as well.'
Mr Cabrita did not outline what ' contradictions' had been found in Mr McCann's statements and refused to give any further details after the Lisbon hearing.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250084/How-letter-UK-police-turned-spotlight-Kate-Gerry-McCann.html#ixzz4j30EzGmT
Lee Rainbow made the report, I'll take your date of 1st June 2007 ... which very clearly did not say what Antonio Cabrita thought it said. No-one seemed to be interested in the generic advice on procedure or doing the proper thing of clearing their feet as advised.
Interest seems to have settled on an almost racing certainty ... as Amaral outlines in his book that the profilers were intent on an individual they seemed to think fitted their profile with a 90% supposition.
Snip
All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.
Amaral
If Lee Rainbow had advocated that British dogs were used in the search, that would appear to be advice which the investigation ignored. Ironically it seems that Madeleine's parents themselves were the catalyst for that, not the profiler ...
Snip
The couple, worried that inquiries by the Policia Judiciaria were losing momentum, asked detectives last month to re-examine the apartment where their daughter went missing and also for the use of sniffer dogs to seek fresh clues.
The subsequent use of British police-trained dogs detected the 'scent of death' on Kate's clothing, a finding that was central in the decision by the Portuguese authorities to name Madeleine McCann's parents as formal suspects. Fresh forensic tests also found new biological samples, partially matching Madeleine's DNA, in the apartment and in the parents' hire car - developments that crystallised the thesis of Portuguese police that the couple were somehow responsible for the disappearance of the four-year-old.
'The family were asking for the investigation to be more thorough,' said a source close to the McCanns.
'That is the supreme irony of the case; that it was them who were asking for the police to look harder at the evidence and re-examine all the issues.
Is that the action of a guilty couple?'
Police sources close to the investigation said yesterday that, although the sniffer dogs 'reacted' to some of Kate's clothes, 'no usable evidence' could be extracted for DNA testing, meaning there was no forensic corroboration for the dogs' reaction.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/sep/23/ukcrime.internationalcrime
The blood detection dog (Keela) wasn't used in the other apartments because Eddie didn't alert in them.
Eddie was just whizzed around the other apartments. From the videos taken at the time it can be seen that Eddie needed time .... remember CCat .... and that was a false alarm ... to the folders or sheet of paper on top of the cupboard.
I wonder who those belonged to? ... who put them there?
We know we rely on expert handlers to understand how and when their dig react. It is not an area that the layman can realistically comment on.that may be your opinion and others will not agree with you....there is no rocket science involved in the training of the dog or the alerts and comment imo is totally valid. WE also have the statements of grime and Harrison which give further ground for comment
You're no expert.
Why should anyone take notice of you.
...and before you say it, I don't pretend to have expertise in that field, but I have my opinion, as posters on here do as well.
Just how unlucky are the McCanns?
First their beautiful daughter is abducted in freakishly improbable circumstances and then two trained cadaver/blood sniffer dogs both independently alert both in their apartment and in a garage where their hire car is placed amongst 10 vehicles!
Even sceptics of sniffer dogs agree they have a high degree of accuracy but stress they are not infallible. Even if the dogs are "notoriously inaccurate" as Gerry would have us believe; how unlucky is it that both trained dogs could have alerted wrongly .... twice! 4 out of 4 wrong!
The McCanns must be the unluckiest people on earth.
Just how unlucky are the McCanns?Tim, You obviously haven't studdied what the alerts mean when both dogs alert
First their beautiful daughter is abducted in freakishly improbable circumstances and then two trained cadaver/blood sniffer dogs both independently alert both in their apartment and in a garage where their hire car is placed amongst 10 vehicles!
Even sceptics of sniffer dogs agree they have a high degree of accuracy but stress they are not infallible. Even if the dogs are "notoriously inaccurate" as Gerry would have us believe; how unlucky is it that both trained dogs could have alerted wrongly .... twice! 4 out of 4 wrong!
The McCanns must be the unluckiest people on earth.
Tim, You obviously haven't studdied what the alerts mean when both dogs alert
When BOTH DOGS ALERT, it means that there is, nor ever was, a dead body
BOTH DOGS ALERT = BLOOD FROM A LIVING PERSON, maybe 20 years ago
They are opinions.
both dogs alert could be cadaver........or not...or maybe...or cuing...or dog tired and wanting to please its owner having been repeatedly brought back to a spotEddie was not tired in 5A. 8((()*/
Eddie was not tired in 5A. 8((()*/
Just how unlucky are the McCanns?
First their beautiful daughter is abducted in freakishly improbable circumstances and then two trained cadaver/blood sniffer dogs both independently alert both in their apartment and in a garage where their hire car is placed amongst 10 vehicles!
Even sceptics of sniffer dogs agree they have a high degree of accuracy but stress they are not infallible. Even if the dogs are "notoriously inaccurate" as Gerry would have us believe; how unlucky is it that both trained dogs could have alerted wrongly .... twice! 4 out of 4 wrong!
The McCanns must be the unluckiest people on earth.
how do you know...quite possibly tired and hotEddie was keen and eager. As per the video. 8((()*/
it doesnt detract from the fact that the alerts are not reliable as evidence
how do you know...quite possibly tired and hot
it doesnt detract from the fact that the alerts are not reliable as evidence
Eddie was keen and eager. As per the video. 8((()*/
doesnt mean he wasnt tired and hot
I'm sure his handler was careful to make sure that his dog was well-rested and happy; he had spent years training and handling dogs.
whatever...it does no affect the validity of the alerts.....or should I say non validity
doesnt mean he wasnt tired and hotSo the video shows keen and eager.
I dont accept the alerts have a high degree of accuracy...
Ok choose to ignore all the 90% + accuracy research if you wish. Say the dogs were only 50% accurate .... can you calculate the chances of them being wrong 4 out of 4?
Ok choose to ignore all the 90% + accuracy research if you wish. Say the dogs were only 50% accurate .... can you calculate the chances of them being wrong 4 out of 4?
FYI at 50% accuracy the chances of the dogs being wrong 4 out 4 is 6.25% ..... @ 90% plus accuracy the chances of them being wrong 4 out of 4 is less than negligible!
and all that is irrelevant because we dont know how accurate the dogs are in these conditions
So you attach no weight or relevance to two trained sniffer dogs independently alerting to McCanns' apartment and car? You don't find it highly suspicious .... the McCanns were just unlucky eh? I find it difficult to understand anyone who doesn't at least find the alerts a cause to pause and wonder!
You seem to dismiss the dog searches as a pointless distraction without any reason to treat the alerts as meaningless!
the reason I treat them as meaningless is because no inference can be drawn from them according to harrison and I understand why...You wish to ignore the evidence that doesnt suit
I an new to this discussion and don't know who Harrison is .... if you enlighten me I will take a look.I use http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TRANSLATIONS.htm then search (find) for Harrison
So you attach no weight or relevance to two trained sniffer dogs independently alerting to McCanns' apartment and car? You don't find it highly suspicious .... the McCanns were just unlucky eh? I find it difficult to understand anyone who doesn't at least find the alerts a cause to pause and wonder!
You seem to dismiss the dog searches as a pointless distraction without any reason to treat the alerts as meaningless!
So you attach no weight or relevance to two trained sniffer dogs independently alerting to McCanns' apartment and car? You don't find it highly suspicious .... the McCanns were just unlucky eh? I find it difficult to understand anyone who doesn't at least find the alerts a cause to pause and wonder!
You seem to dismiss the dog searches as a pointless distraction without any reason to treat the alerts as meaningless!
I an new to this discussion and don't know who Harrison is .... if you enlighten me I will take a look.
Just like Gerry McCann there are people on here who say these dogs are unreliable. In her book his wife said they're not 'scientific', but admits to taking notice of psychics. They also asked the PJ if Danni Krugel could come to Luz with his dodgy machine.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dont-trust-the-bodyfinder-511803
Why the couple dismissed the dogs as unscientific and unreliable but listened to and accepted other unscientific, untested and random advice seems illogical to me.
Martin Grime's professional opinion which I take note of is ALL Eddie alerts were for cadaver scent. After all, he is the expert not you.
The key blood alert matched Gerry. The boot blood alert didn't!
"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
A low level incomplete DNA profile which matched the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Gerald McCann was obtained from cellular material on the key card (286C/2007-CRL(12)). This sample has not been sent for further testing using LCN DNA profiling tests.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Why not? Maybe it could have mysteriously turned into 3-5 different people making up the profile &%+((£
Eddie did not alert to the boot.
NB the continuation of Martin Grime's quote makes it clear that Eddie's alert means nothing without corroboration ... of which there was none.
Full quote
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I think if there was any case to be made it would be unnecessary to daisy pick a selected part of what was actually said to make it what you want it to say.
Such distortion has dogged Madeleine's case from the start which imo has been most unhelpful in gathering any clear understanding of events.
Page 232 of Kate's book explains how their desperation to find Madeleine affected the decisions they made at that time.
It's clear from her book that later on - when they were thinking more logically they realised how their wanting to find Madeleine so badly had affected their reasoning.
Nothing odd about that in such circumstances. Desperate people will try anything if they think there is the slightest chance it might help. Logic doesn't come into it at such traumatic times.
I'm not sure whether Kate said the dogs were unscientific or the tests were. Can you clarify please G.
AIMHO
Eddie did not alert to the boot.
NB the continuation of Martin Grime's quote makes it clear that Eddie's alert means nothing without corroboration ... of which there was none.
Full quote
My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is
suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. This does not however
suggest a motive or suspect as cross contamination could be as a result of a
number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence
reliability can be made from these alerts unless they can be confirmed with
corroborating evidence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I think if there was any case to be made it would be unnecessary to daisy pick a selected part of what was actually said to make it what you want it to say.
Such distortion has dogged Madeleine's case from the start which imo has been most unhelpful in gathering any clear understanding of events.
If police were to discount the dog alerts every time they occur they might as well dispense with them altogether. Bottom line is that Eddie only alerted to items of clothing and other objects associated with the McCann family, he did not show any interest in anyone else. Those alerts are strongly suggestive that cadaver odour was present either by direct contact or by contamination. The chances of this being an unfortunate coincidence are not high.
its quite telling how little you understand the alerts....the alerts are strongly suggestive you say...according to whom...grime says suggestive not highly suggestive so you are stating your opinion as fact.
as dispensing with the dogs...another ridiculous statement...the dog like other dogs are used to find evidence...that's their value. If they didn't find evidence then they would be dispensed with
Eddie was surely also trained not to pick up evidence in his mouth or dig instead of barking-but both those things occurred with Eddie. An unreliable dog imo.
His many successes shows your opinion to be biased.
If successes are based on bodies located then he wasn't very successful when deployed by SYP.
If successes are based on bodies located then he wasn't very successful when deployed by SYP.
This has been discussed previously as Eddie had numerous successes.
If he was no good, why did the F.B.I employ him ?
This has been discussed previously as Eddie had numerous successes.
Quote from the relevant part of South Yorkshire Police FOI
Eddie the Springer Spaniel sniffer dog.
Reference number: 20090062
Request date: 19/02/2009 (All day)
Response date: 30/03/2009 (All day)
Request details:
SYP response:
Thank you for your request for information in relation to:
1. Which cases has Eddie the Springer Spaniel sniffer dog been used in within the South Yorkshire Force area over the last five years?
(snipped)
As two teams working together: handler Ellis and dog Frankie, with handler Grime and dog Eddie have been deployed on twenty occasions, with the recovery of four bodies.
Working alone, Grime/Eddie have been deployed on seventeen occasions with the recovery of one body and Ellis/Frankie have been deployed on five occasions with the recovery of three bodies, this includes the recovery of two women in one grave.
End quote
Eddie and Grime have been deployed on a total of 37 occasions over 5 years. Only on 17 of those occasions were Eddie and Grime working alone - finding one body.
This would appear to be a far cry from the 200 cases claimed by some.
IMO
In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption.
according to harrison no inference can be drawn from such alerts and he is the expert
In six years of operational deployment in over 200
criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and
specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm)
I find it hard to believe that 200 people disappeared in suspicious circumstances( as the quote bolded above claims) during the 5 years that Eddie worked for SYP - and required him to search for them. Surely such a huge no. would have been headline news.
It's obvious to me that the reference is to Eddie's non-reaction to foodstuffs and not to cadavers. I have no doubt that Grime subjected to him to regular testing in that area - and the figure of 200 includes those tests.
AIMHO
So why do you think 200 case searches mean 200 cases rather than 200 searches?
One can also add to this the more recent case involving the murder of Kate Prout. Mrs Prout was strangled by her husband Adrian and her body hidden in a deep grave on the couples farm. Eddie was deployed to the farm as the investigation developed and alerted within the family home. Eddie was unable to alert to cadaver scent at the burial site due to the manner and depth at which the body had been buried.So even though the EVRD didn't find the body the alert in the home would have encouraged the police to keep investigating and extra pressure on the perpetrator "we know you did it" having a psychological pressure effect resulting finally in a confession.
The EVRD's alerts within the family home together with other evidence allowed police and the CPS to bring Adrian Prout to trial despite his wife's whereabouts being unknown. Prout was later convicted of murder but continued to protest his innocence. As part of a campaign to overturn his conviction he agreed to take a lie detector test which he failed. As a result he went on to admit his guilt and eventually took police to the location where he had buried his wife using a mechanical digger. Her body was recovered in due course.
The EVRD alerts in the family home were as a result of secondary transfer associated with the killer after coming into contact with the cadaver.
So even though the EVRD didn't find the body the alert in the home would have encouraged the police to keep investigating and extra pressure on the perpetrator "we know you did it" having a psychological pressure effect resulting finally in a confession.
I disagree, when you send in a dog trained to find a bone he usually finds a bone. It is not unreasonable to infer therefore, that when that same dog alerts but no bone is found, that the bone has been moved.
Grime claims operational deployment and over 200 cases:
Let's have a verified cite to back up your claim.
I haven't made a 'claim'; I have offered a cite:"In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never
Sub-heading: Points to assist.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
"In six years operational deployment in over 200 cases the dog has never
alerted to meat based foodstuffs."
Thank you Rob.
You have done nothing but attack Grime.
Unlike you, he knows how to handle dogs, and what they are capable of.
Grime is a professional, with a proven track record.
That is why the F.B.I. employed him, and IMHO, that really galls you, because you can't answer that.
Are people who find employment in America exempt from conducting themselves in a professional way when participating in criminal investigations; or from presenting the credentials of their assets honestly?
Are people who find employment in America exempt from conducting themselves in a professional way when participating in criminal investigations; or from presenting the credentials of their assets honestly?
And reverting the whole thing back on-topic, why should Kate have been other than unimpressed and sceptical about the deployment of the dogs in Praia da Luz?
Didn't Kevin Halligan manage to fool the FBI and various other US government agencies?
Deflection.I could imagine that just for the exercise they would take Eddie out for a sniff around, It might not be a murder or anything like that but during those runs he never alerted incorrectly. That would be only at the rate of once a week or so for the exercise. 37 maybe the number of missing person cases.
Why did Grime lie that Eddie had been involved in over 200 cases when his true tally is (at least closer to) 37.
I think there might be one, unaccounted for, year in that FOI answer. But it certainly won't make the number to (anything like!) 200.
Do you really think the F.B.I. are naive ?
They employed a professional to do a job.
I suggest you be very careful Misty.
Now you wouldn't want to libel Grime, would you.
Misty has gone nowhere near libelling Martin Grime or anyone else for that matter. Presenting the reminder of the fact that being employed as a contractor by the FBI is sometimes no guarantee of integrity doesn't come close in my opinion.
Just as reminding of Eddie's glaring incompetence in Jersey libels no-one despite the similarity of approach to his effort in Pria da Luz libels no-one, not even the dog, because it is very much a matter of record.
One person's Libel is another person's Truth. Let's hope we don't lose sight of this.
There are objective criteria that can be applied in making informed judgements on these things.
FOI answers is a good guide, I think.
As you said, in your opinion.
Criticism of Grime by Mccann supporters is par for the course.
As for Eddie's incompetence ?
Pray tell, what was that.
I presume you've heard of secondary transfer.
So, as you feel free to criticize Grime, then you would concur there is an open season on Rowley and Redwood as well ?
That is a matter of opinion.
As you know full well, Grime can't answer you at the moment, or deal with what you have said about him.
For now, that is.
You and countless others have attacked Kate and Gerry from very early on.
My critique of Grime is scathing, but evidence-based.
Why can't he?
It seems to have escaped your attentions, but the McCann's behaviour triggered this case.
There is no getting away from that.
As to Grime, your support of the McCann's says everything. as to, why you have attacked someone you knew who couldn't answer back.
Like I said, that won't always be the case.
Have you forgotten what John and Angelo have said about that ?amaral has said quite a bit...ferryman is stating facts that are in the public domain...you think they are libellous...that doesnt mean they are
It seems to have escaped your attentions, but the McCann's behaviour triggered this case.
There is no getting away from that.
As to Grime, your support of the McCann's says everything. as to, why you have attacked someone you knew who couldn't answer back.
Like I said, that won't always be the case.
Have you forgotten what John and Angelo have said about that ?
Have you forgotten what John and Angelo have said about that ?
#its quite possible that the case will never be closed...have you considered that
I asked you for your opinion.
You haven't been paying attention to my posts.
So, yet again, I don't see this case being solved, bar a confession.
do you not realise your own signature is libellous re S and S
Have you taken any notice of what John and Admin have said ?
#its quite possible that the case will never be closed...have you considered that
How could a potential witness, comment in an ongoing 'investigation' .
It could jeopardise a potential case.
However, you know that already.
I still think it is clearly libellous...do you think it isnt
How could a potential witness, comment in an ongoing 'investigation' .
It could jeopardise a potential case.
However, you know that already.
The case will not get unlimited funding, and it will dry up.
you posted...
As to Grime, your support of the McCann's says everything. as to, why you have attacked someone you knew who couldn't answer back.
Like I said, that won't always be the case.
so when do you expect grime to be able to comment seeing as the case will probably never be closed
How could him speaking jeopardise any potential case if the dogs' alerts are inadmissible in a Portuguese criminal court?
I hope you are not trying to goad me.
When the case runs out of funding.as I said it will not be closed...so when will grime be able to comment as per your claim
It will be shelved.
im stating a fact...imo your signature is libellous...am i not able to have an opinion
This, from The Guardian, about Nick Rose (indeed convicted of the murder of Charlotte Pinkney).
From the article, you will see Nick Rose, although convicted of the crime, has never admitted his guilt.
And I have highlighted the reference to the button, right at the end.
So who would take me to court ?
Convicted people do not always admit their guilt ferryman.
Now if a body is found.......then his professional reputation may not be adversely affected by this case.
How could a potential witness, comment in an ongoing 'investigation' .
It could jeopardise a potential case.
However, you know that already.
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... write a book about it?
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... write and star in a documentary about it?
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... build a media career as a pundit based on it?
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... give interview after interview giving his views on it?
Does none of that jeopardise a potential case?
I think the importance of the dog handler and his dogs may be somewhat overrated in this particular case.
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... write a book about it?
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... write and star in a documentary about it?
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... build a media career as a pundit based on it?
How could a man central to the initial investigation ... give interview after interview giving his views on it?
Does none of that jeopardise a potential case?
I think the importance of the dog handler and his dogs may be somewhat overrated in this particular case.
I suggest you consult The Portuguese Judiciary.
...then his professional reputation may not be adversely affected by this case.
I repeat the question - what effect would it have on a criminal case if his evidence is inadmissible in a Portuguese court?
Take it a step further. What if a detective who had actively worked the original case was discussing evidence anonymously on internet fora?
We are dealing with Portuguese Law, not British.
Has that escaped your attention.
Strawman.
Grime claims Rose immediately admitted his guilt.
Rose didn't.
Grime claims some fancy manoeuvre with the dog leading to the discovery of a button in long grass. The button was found in the dust-bag of a vacuum cleaner.
Grime has stated clearly the alerts have no evidential value....Harrison has said no inferences can be drawn from them....how can they be used in evidence in any court...think about it
...then his professional reputation may not be adversely affected by this case.
I repeat the question - what effect would it have on a criminal case if his evidence is inadmissible in a Portuguese court?
Take it a step further. What if a detective who had actively worked the original case was discussing evidence anonymously on internet fora?
If a body is found.
We are dealing with Portuguese Law, not British.
Has that escaped your attention.
then it is the body which is the evidence not the alerts
I do know the alerts have not been corroborated.
However, they are still recorded in the files, and they won't disappear either, never to be found.
Does Portuguese Law permit cadaver dogs' alerts as evidence - yes or no?
If they had no value, you would not constantly post about them.
They remain in the case files.
I had forgotten about that Misty. But was his anonymity not blown somewhat?
If it is the same detective I'm thinking of, who used the 'Eddie and Keela Show' videos as a blunt instrument in his questioning of Kate McCann ... that could be an interesting cross examination.
Which of course, is never ever going to happen anyway.
Since Portugal doesn't (or hitherto hasn't) use(d) cadaver dogs, it's unlikely Portuguese law will have anything (whatsoever!) to say about cadaver dogs.Where is the wry-smile emoticon when you want it?
In which case (I assume) a Portuguese court would take its lead from English courts, whose legislation says uncorroborated dog-alerts are inadmissible as evidence in court.
The Portuguese prosecutors certainly took their lead from what Harrison (and Grime) had to see in the files on that.
Where is the wry-smile emoticon when you want it?
A lawyer for the defence could well argue that getting an unbiased jury or judge after the dog alert videos is impossible. They are extremely popular in Portugal, as evidenced by the Portuguese-language 10th anniversary specials.
As to Portuguese courts taking their lead from English courts, that idea does not manage to get off the ground.
the alerts have no evidential value...if the portuguese public have been told and believe otherwise then they have been told and believe lies...It really isn't that simple.
similarly if the portuguese courts do not accept the alerts have no evidential value then they too believe lies...it really is that simple
It really isn't that simple.
I'm on my 3rd or 4th Portuguese 10th Anniversary documentary.
All feature the dogs prominently.
It matters not a jot what evidence is permitted in court. It matters what has already been put before (Portuguese) judges and/or jurors.
And that is as simple as it gets.
It really isn't that simple.And that is an absolute disgrace
I'm on my 3rd or 4th Portuguese 10th Anniversary documentary.
All feature the dogs prominently.
It matters not a jot what evidence is permitted in court. It matters what has already been put before (Portuguese) judges and/or jurors.
And that is as simple as it gets.
So how did this 'jaundiced' remit work in practical terms - without involving corruption? What instruction would be given to the officers examining the evidence? ''Oh by the way if you come across anything that looks as if it might incriminate the McCanns and their friends - just ignore it''. ?
The whole idea is too daft for words imo - and I'm still waiting for someone to explain why the McCanns ARE so important that a conspiracy involving the UK government was considered to be so vital in the first place. Any ideas?
AIMHO
The practicalities are easy to understand if you understand hierarchies. Those at the top decide what needs to be done and how. A detective working on sightings, for example, wouldn't see any evidence involving the T9 except perhaps Jane Tanner's.
Unless a team were asked to analyse the evidence against the McCanns they wouldn't do it, so nothing of concern would be found.
The McCanns were not important, just persistent. They persistently promoted the abduction theory, their own innocence and the inadequacies of the PJ. It's quite possible that Cameron, May and the Met believed them and wanted to help.
The PJ do not have the same remit as the Met. What do you think they would do with evidence against the McCanns or evidence which led them to "forbidden" areas of UK hierarchy?
The practicalities are easy to understand if you understand hierarchies. Those at the top decide what needs to be done and how. A detective working on sightings, for example, wouldn't see any evidence involving the T9 except perhaps Jane Tanner's.
Unless a team were asked to analyse the evidence against the McCanns they wouldn't do it, so nothing of concern would be found.
The McCanns were not important, just persistent. They persistently promoted the abduction theory, their own innocence and the inadequacies of the PJ. It's quite possible that Cameron, May and the Met believed them and wanted to help.
We have been by Rowley told that the evidence against the Mccann's has been looked at and SY are happy with what they have seen
He said;
the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that
It seems OG missed the bit where the investigations into the parents had to be left unfinished, so not completely 'dealt with'.
more like SY felt the recon was a complete waste of time
We have been by Rowley told that the evidence against the Mccann's has been looked at and SY are happy with what they have seenOnly if you watched a different Sky documentary to me. It majored on the fact that the McCanns had been excluded from investigation before OG was established.
Only if you watched a different Sky documentary to me. It majored on the fact that the McCanns had been excluded from investigation before OG was established.
Only if you watched a different Sky documentary to me. It majored on the fact that the McCanns had been excluded from investigation before OG was established.
What do you think Jim Gamble & his team were looking at when they reviewed the case prior to reporting to the Home Office pre. the launch of OG?Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.
I read the transcript supplied by Heriberto...perhaps you should do the same and you will see the words I used are thereThen perhaps you should view the Sky documentary. It majored on the fact that the parents were not ruled out by investigation, so OG has a massive flaw.
Then perhaps you should view the Sky documentary. It majored on the fact that the parents were not ruled out by investigation, so OG has a massive flaw.
Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.
Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.
Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.
Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.
do you have a cite for this?...Ive never seen it beforeIt's in the Sky documentary. 16.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
It's in the Sky documentary. 16.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
By the way, if you are going to ask for cites, kindly provide them yourself.
Whether there remained opportunities for investigation, presumably, given that was the recommendation.
Since Mr Gamble declared his surprise that the fresh investigation did not start with the McCanns, it appears to be safe that he did not rule them out in his scoping report.
with respect most of us have followed the case closely and I dont believe gamble ever said that.With respect, I have no interest in your belief. For someone claiming not to have watched the programme to claim what was or was not in it is beyond fanciful.
unless you can supply a cite any statement you make is highly questionable re its accuracy
It's in the Sky documentary. 16.40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX3u2Hp42ic
By the way, if you are going to ask for cites, kindly provide them yourself.
With respect, I have no interest in your belief. For someone claiming not to have watched the programme to claim what was or was not in it is beyond fanciful.
If you listen to it, you will hear that he is referring to the original PJ investigation, not his scoping exercise.
He says the PJ should have investigated those closest to the child immediately. As they didn't, their investigation can be said to have 'dealt with' parental involvement, but was it dealt with too late to be meaningful?
KERRY O’BRIEN: One of the significant questions related to Madeleine McCann’s disappearance is this: if she was targeted by child traffickers, what would they have wanted with a three or four-year-old? Are children targeted that young? Former senior Scotland Yard investigator, Jim Gamble, has led the British National Crime Intelligence Service fight against child sex abuse, and he was the head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre within the UK police, which did some analysis for the Portuguese police early in the investigation of Madeleine’s disappearance. He subsequently did a scoping study for a review of the case in 2009 for the previous Labour government. Jim Gamble had since got to know the McCann’s personally, and he joins me now from London.
Jim Gamble, let’s get one obvious question out of the way, first-up: from everything you know personally about the McCanns and the case, do you believe they had anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?
JIM GAMBLE, FMR HEAD, CHILD PROTECTION CENTRE (CEOP): If it ever came out that either of the McCanns were involved in this, I will be absolutely shocked.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Why do you say that?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, from everything I know about it, it’s not that as a professional police officer they wouldn’t have been first on my list of suspects, because actually, of course they would – they’re the parents, they were there, they had last access. But having been involved in the periphery to a greater or lesser degree on different occasions with this case, having met the McCanns, having seen their children Sean and Amelie around them, I just would be shocked. There’s nothing which gives me that feeling; there’s no evidence which makes me feel that they are in any way complicit in the disappearance. But I’m a human being, you know, and we can err. I’m simply saying that I would be shocked if either one of them were proven to be involved in any way in this.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Given the five year time lapse since Madeleine’s disappearance, what do you think the chances are of finding her, even with such a well-resourced UK police team?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, I think there’s always hope, and nobody should take away hope from parents who have to get up and look after their other two small children every day. And people often talk to be about the statistics and what’s most likely to have become of Madeleine. Jaycee Dugard turned up after many, many years, having been abducted from a bus stop near her home. And when we began to look at the Minute from Madeleine Initiative video, which we created in CEOP some years back, we looked at a number of cases where children had gone missing, been abducted, and many years later were found, or came back themselves. So, I think there’s always hope. As the years go on, of course, it’s harder to sustain that, and that’s one of the reasons I think we all welcomed the recent Metropolitan Police investigation, and the way it’s breathed new life back into this enquiry.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What’s your basis for saying “it’s breathed new life”? Because, because my next question is, why the British police would succeed where the Portuguese police failed, given that at least the Portuguese had a fresh trail to try and follow.
JIM GAMBLE: Well, I don’t think it’s so much where the Portuguese police failed. The investigation in the early days was complex, as these investigations are, but it was complicated by the fact that it covered such a vast geography. And none of us – you know, the British, the Portuguese, or others – were very good in those early days, because it’s not something we do very often. And what happened because of that was that information would be held in different places, and perhaps shared in different ways. Now, with the Metropolitan Police and the level of competence that they have, and experience in these complex investigations, they bring something new to the table. I think there is a willingness within Portugal to have a look at anything the Metropolitan Police find that’s fresh, and critically, what I believe the men are doing is bringing together the disparate pieces of information that perhaps sat elsewhere in the UK or in Portugal, and, for the first time, aggregating it in a way that all of that information can be interrogated at a single point.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What did you and your team highlight in your scoping study of the study, as areas for fresh attention?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, without going into too much detail, what we identified was that the information was all over the place. That the fact that a number of difference agencies had very enthusiastically and appropriately helped in their own ways, having itself created a difficulty because there was a lack of coherent leadership, I believe, at different times throughout the investigation – that’s simply from the UK perspective. At the very beginning of this investigation, everybody, including myself and CEOP, rushed to help. And because we don’t deal with this type of cases, thankfully, on a day-by-day basis, and we were learning as we went along, so I think there were little pots of information, and some big pots of information, that could have been dealt with better. So we identified that, recognised it. We also identified a number of other areas, and a number of other anomalies, where perhaps some of the other information that would have been available, and had been captured, but never properly interrogated. And as the Metropolitan Police are going through a life investigation now, I think it would probably be unhelpful of me to go into any greater detail on that.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Can you understanding why David Cameron did eventually reopen the case?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, I’m glad you used the word “eventually”. I am thrilled that he, you know, prompted the new review by the Metropolitan Police, but the report which we put in, which highlighted all of the anomalies that are currently being discussed, and have been discussed for some time. That was on that government desk as they came in to par. The home secretary had it, and it’s unfortunate that it took an open letter from Gerry McCann, on the front of a national newspaper, to prompt David Cameron to do this. But maybe he was unaware that the home secretary already had a report highlighting these issues, but it shouldn’t take the plea of a parent in a desperate circumstance to get the prime minister to do the right thing. But now that he’s done it, absolutely fantastic. With his backing behind it, I think it has more hope than it ever had before.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What was your reaction to the book that came out from the former leader of the Portuguese investigation, particularly when essentially the finger was being pointed at the McCanns?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, first of all, I think it was unprofessional, and secondly, I think it was unhelpful. The fact that this individual perpetrates a view that is clearly his – that the McCanns are guilty, or suggests that the McCanns are guilty of this offence – that’s troublesome from a number of issues. That’s an issue for a court to decide, and secondly, when a professional police officer, when someone with the access to information that that role would suggest that individual has, starts going down one specific line, it takes our eye off the broader picture. It stops being looking, because they believe, “Well, there’s no point, we know who did it”. Now, I’m aware of cases myself that I’ll not go into in detail here, where because certain individuals have assumed that one person was guilty, the real person, the real culprit, when free for many, many more years than they actually should have, simply because everyone said, “Well, there’s no point. We know who did it, we can’t prove it, so let’s carry on with our day jobs”. I think what he’s done is foolish.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Now, if I understand your position correctly, if you had been conducting an investigation like this, you’d have started with the parents and taken a very quick look and either established there was something suspicious, or you’d have ruled them out and moved on. Now, if I understand it correctly, the Portuguese were kind of the other way around. It took them some time to suddenly develop the view that the McCanns might have been suspicious.
JIM GAMBLE: Well, I think that’s a fair assessment. When we carried out the scoping review, in order to be fair, what we did was, we said, “Let’s take a sleepy seaside town somewhere in the UK, and imagine that, you know, late in the evening, a couple had come to us who didn’t speak English as their first language, and who were Portuguese and said, ‘Look, our child has gone missing'”. I think what we accepted immediately is we would have faced a complicated scenario similar to that which the Portuguese did. You’re not sure whether the child has simply walked away or been taken away, and it does take a period of time to get that information together, so there were clearly difficulties, and we would all face those. In the immediate aftermath, the systematic approach is what is key, and certainly as professional detectives, we use the phrase “clear the ground beneath your feet”. Look at that which is immediately in front of you first of all. And the only difference between the Portuguese and myself would have been that the first suspects that I would have looked at would have been the parents.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Given what you know about child abduction, if this was an abduction, what are the most likely possibilities?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, you can start from someone who has perhaps lost a child, the balance of their mind may be disturbed, and they take someone else’s child to replace theirs – to meet an emotional need that they have. And then move to the sexual predator, who perhaps would target a child, engage that child, capture them and abuse them – and we’ve seen that happen around the world. And then you come to the point of the actual trafficker – someone that would perhaps target a particular child for sale into a specialist or particular market somewhere else around the world. And these things happen, and whilst we can look at the statistical analysis of the likelihood of children still being alive, alive after each of those scenarios, there is always the exception to the rule – Jaycee Dugard is a good example of a child who was actually abducted and abused, and still alive today.
KERRY O’BRIEN: If Madeleine was the target of professional child traffickers, is it at all common, or is it unusual for somebody that young to be targeted?
JIM GAMBLE: No, I don’t think it’s uncommon for someone that young to be targeted. But, I mean, in our experience, a Western child being targeted and abducted by child traffickers, is very, very rare, because the publicity that surrounds it is so massive. I mean, we often hear the argument, “Why so much attention for one little girl, when so many go missing?” It’s a very complicated set of circumstances, missing children, but the kids that go missing because they’ve been abducted – abducted by someone other than a parent in a parental dispute – they’re rare. That’s why, if you come to the UK, we’ll be able to talk about Holly and Jessica, we’ll be able to talk about Milly Dowler, we’ll be able to talk about Madeleine McCann – because those cases are so rare, they strike a chord with every parent, that you never ever forget the names of the children or the incident involved. So the cases are rare, but it’s not unusual for traffickers to target particular children for particular clients.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Is there anything to suggest that this was the work of professional criminals?
JIM GAMBLE: Well, first of all, I’m not privy to information in the current investigation, so I really wouldn’t be comfortable speculating about that.
KERRY O’BRIEN: What do you think the odds are that we will ever know what has happened to Madeleine McCann?
JIM GAMBLE: I believe in my lifetime we will find out what happened to Madeleine McCann. I believe, in all of these cases, someone is looking over their shoulder somewhere. The person that did this knows, and they’ll be concerned that other people around them might also know. And relationships change over a period of time, and if the person that did this ever watches your program, ever watches this interview on YouTube or on the television, they need to know that someone suspects them somewhere, and it’s only a matter of time until they come forward with that information, with that hint, with that degree of suspicion which will finally turn the spotlight on them. I believe we’ll find out who did this, and I believe the person involved in it would be better coming forward now and doing the right thing. It’s never too late for the person who did this to come forward and give Gerry and Kate the peace of knowing what has happened to their daughter.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Jim Gamble, thank you very much for talking with us.
JIM GAMBLE: Thank you.
KERRY O’BRIEN: Next week on Four Corners, a hard look in a new phenomenon in the Australian workforce that’s come from the massive mining boom – the syndome of the fly in, fly out or drive in, drive out worker. We look at who’s winning and who’s losing. Join us then, but for now, goodnight.
Source
He says the PJ should have investigated those closest to the child immediately. As they didn't, their investigation can be said to have 'dealt with' parental involvement, but was it dealt with too late to be meaningful?
If the PJ couldn't even conduct a proper investigation into those closest to Madeleine, for elimination purposes, how can anyone have faith in the rest of their work & the conclusion reached by September 2007?
Kate & Gerry have subsequently been scrutinised by several agencies & the fact remains both the current investigation teams have publicly stated they are not suspects.
OG seem to think the PJ were competent enough to'deal with' the issue of parental involvement. My personal opinion. My personal opinion is that the PJ could have gathered a lot more information. Who was the woman who went to the night creche? Why wasn't the receptionist asked about Matt's visit at 10.10? Why did Carpenter see cars parked between the Tapas entrance and the McCann's apartment but none of the Tapas people did?
With respect, I have no interest in your belief. For someone claiming not to have watched the programme to claim what was or was not in it is beyond fanciful.
I have heard that forensic canines have been deployed today.
I have heard that forensic canines have been deployed today.Where are you talking about?
Where are you talking about?
It's just the Mod deliberately going OT again, referring to the major flat fire in London last Monday night. Several victims are still in the burned-out structure.
OT ?The dogs were in the building yesterday - I saw it on the news last evening.
Tut, Tut.
Merely pointing out that dogs do what they are trained for.
Perhaps you should read the references in today's papers on this.
The dogs were in the building yesterday - I saw it on the news last evening.The dogs are there to find human remains which is what they are, good at
Let's hope the dogs don't go tossing around the material they alert to then, eh?
The dogs are there to find human remains which is what they are, good at
OT ?
Tut, Tut.
Merely pointing out that dogs do what they are trained for.
Perhaps you should read the references in today's papers on this.
Dogs are neither trained to pick stuff up in their mouths nor to trample all over stuff they are tasked to inspect.
They are especially not trained to issue a I want my toy back message in the form of a 'work signal' (Eddie and Cuddle-cat).
In conclusion there is no intelligence spe?ic to this case or generic datasets
that support a scenario of beach burial. Additionally the digability study and
coastal dynamics of the Praia Da Luz beach further limit this as a viable
scenario. However should further assurance be required I would suggest a
limited inspection around the rock falls at the base of the cliffs' on the beach
and the waters around the rocky outcrop to the east of the beach.