Hi and welcome to the forum Icanhandlethetruth
Thanks for the intro.
I do not believe the dog alerts alone are evidence of anything evidenced by the police's strategic review of the Shannon Matthews case. Please refer to page 25. The dogs were alerting and we know SM was found very much alive.
The odour is clearly transferrable on inanimate objects. We know 5A was surrounded by death prior to MM's disappearance eg Mr Fenn died in 2003 and Mr McCann (previous owner of 5A and no relation to GM/KM) died late 2006. The McCanns and members of T7 were medics and GM/KM were surrounding themselves with priests (robes) and churches.
With regard to the hire car we would need a complete audit of who and what had been in the car to rule out contamination. A hire car by definition will sustain a very high number of users. Were the other cars in the car park hire cars or privately owned? If the latter hardly a fair comparison.
Maybe the alerts have been successfully used in other cases along with other supporting evidence which simply doesn't exist in this case.
Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened. I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.
One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence. I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.
I think you are misinformed...could you quote some of these many cases
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.
You have hit the nail on the head with reference to the value of dog alerts which are not in themselves evidence unless substantiated by evidence.
The value of the dog alerts in the garage is that the evidence given by them has absolutely nothing at all to do with Madeleine McCann. The only alert given by the cadaver dog proved to be blood which was not Madeleine's.
This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;
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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.
I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.
The only one I'm aware of as being presented in court as evidence is Pillay.. At the appeal it was ruled that the alerts should have been inadmissible. You claim there are many.... You are mistaken
You are absolutely 100% wrong.... Grime says it's possible the alert is to cadaver... Not that it is
I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.
I struggle to understand how after evidence is found to be inadmissible no retrial was ordered. I have read the court notes and it makes no mention of the dogs alerts being inadmissible, maybe I missed it.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=fbc08aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Look into the Margaret Fleming case, it was on BBC2 last night it will be on Iplayer at about 40 minutes is the testimony of the dog handler. "Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming Episode 1.
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.
No retrial was ordered because it was ruled that there was enough evidence without the dogs... That's what the apoeal court said
Kate Prout's body was found. The murderer was taken from prison where he was already serving his sentence for her murder to give the police assistance in finding her.
The convictions for murder by the perpetrators of the disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and Margaret Fleming had absolutely nothing to do with the testimony given by the dog handlers as part of the Crown Case (which in Margaret's case was broadcast by the BBC in a court recording of the event).
The convictions in both these cases was due to the weight of the evidence presented. It is not a good idea to present it as anything other than that.
Well one of us is reading the court papers wrong as in the paragraph attached the court reinforces the dogs as evidence against David Gilroy, unless I am reading it wrong please clarify.
[63] The court has had little hesitation in determining that, even if the statements had been ruled inadmissible, there is no real possibility that the jury would have reached a different verdict (Cadder v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 13, Lord Hope at para [64] applying McInnes v HM Advocate 2010 SC (UKSC) 28). In that regard, it is on the case which was presented at the trial that the court must concentrate (Fraser v HM Advocate 2011 SC (UKSC) 113, Lord Hope at para [38]). If the statements, and in particular the first statement, had not been adduced in evidence, the appellant would effectively have had no defence at all to the Crown case other than to rely on the presumption of innocence. The case against him would have been overwhelming. There would have been evidence of: (a) the turbulent nature of his relationship with the deceased, involving intense jealousy in the context of expressed views from the deceased that their relationship was at an end; (b) the proximity of the arrivals of the deceased and the appellant at 11 Thistle Street on the morning of the disappearance; (c) the undoubtedly sinister cessation of text messages between the appellant and the deceased at about the time of her disappearance; (d) the appellant's strange demeanour on the morning of the disappearance and his sudden departure to collect his car on the pretext of having lost the minutes; (d) the cadaver dog's reaction to his car; (e) most significant, the state of the appellant's car upon his return from an unexpectedly long and sudden trip to Lochgilphead; and (f) the injuries on his hands, which he tried to conceal and which were characteristic of a reaction of someone being strangled.
that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post
Did you ever find the SCCRC report?
Its not my assertion that the dog handlers evidence sealed the case. The evidence of the dog handlers was presented to the jury and the jury weighed up the whole body of evidence before reaching their verdict. My only assertion is that such alerts are evidence as presented in a court of law.
that isnt the SCCRC report...remember you said many cases in the UK...perhaps you should alter your post
David Gilroy, 51, whose appeal was rejected by the Criminal Appeal Court in 2012, will have his case reviewed by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
The word you used in relation to the dog evidence provided was "uncorroborated" which is an absolute nonsense in my opinion in terms of evidence presented at trial.
In Margaret's case, for example, the jury were told of numerous bone fragments found at the scene of the alerts which were too small for identification as either human or animal.
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast
no i didnt pursue it...the family said that the SCCRC ruled the alerts inadmissable and it was further confirmed on a recent podcast
Maybe the question is which is the Higher Authority, An appeal in the High Court presided by Lord Brodie and Lord Wheatley or the Scottish Criminal Cases Review for which perhaps you would lead me to the notes prepared by such a body.
So you're relying on the family of the accused to tell you what the report said?try reading the post to the end of the sentence...it might help
So basically your information comes from family members and a podcast. Whereas I can show you the notes from the appeal that emphasises the appeal judges still consider the evidence of the cadaver dog to be valid in the conviction.
So how is that corroboration. No human remains were identified. Please explain.
you claimed the alerts ahve been admitted in many cases in the UK...absolute rubbish.....youve cited two in scotland.
In the Pillay case the SCCRC ruled the alerts should not have been admitted...the Judge in your other cases may well have erred.
You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible. But in the spirit of fairness I know of 2 maybe that's not many but its enough. I over egged the pudding slightly. Again who do you imagine has the higher authority the Court of Appeal in the High Court or the SCCRC.
And if dog alerts are inadmissible why were they allowed in the Margaret Fleming case in 2019.
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible. But in the spirit of fairness I know of 2 maybe that's not many but its enough. I over egged the pudding slightly. Again who do you imagine has the higher authority the Court of Appeal in the High Court or the SCCRC.
And if dog alerts are inadmissible why were they allowed in the Margaret Fleming case in 2019.
The significance of the dog alerts is, in my opinion, directly related to the amount of energy expended by those who claim they're not significant. No other subject brings forth so many exhibiting so much denial.That's quite foolish imo..the alerts are what they are... Nothing here has any influence on that.
It seems gilroy based his, appeal on the way his statements were taken and didn't question the alerts... Thst would be why the appeal court didn't address them.
Why were they admitted in the Fleming case... Quite possibly failure for the defence to challenge them
The appeal court did not address the alerts... I don't believe they were, asked to. The SCCRC did... And ruled them inadmissible..
Quick correction, the appeal court did address the alerts, to emphasise the evidence against Gilroy.
So you accept that uncorroborated dog alerts were allowed in the Fleming case which kind of agrees with my original post that uncorroborated dog alerts can be used as evidence in UK courts.
the podcast contained live audio statements from real experts...not armchair bloggers....LOL
It matters not one bit if they are real experts, the only thing that matters is were they the presiding judges in both the original case and the 2012 appeal. I don't believe they were but maybe you can tell me differently.
The appeal court did not address the alerts... I don't believe they were, asked to. The SCCRC did... And ruled them inadmissible..
Do you have a case from England... Anything in the last 20 years... No
Judges make mistakes... The judge in the Gilroy case did.
The defence was poor... I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible
I like the way you think you know more than a high court judge about what evidence should be allowed. What qualifies you to make this assumption.
Do you really believe in both cases the defence council never tried to get the dog evidence ruled as inadmissible.
Why would they not, that's ludicrous.
Do you think the presiding judge didn't take council from experts concerning the dog alerts and then form a judgement after deliberating on it.
If the judge had taken council from experts he wouldn't have admitted them. As I said in the Gilroy case they were later declared inadmissible.... But I've seen no evidence they were challenged
So the judge just decided to just wing it? Without expert advice? Do you know how much a case costs financially? To risk a case collapsing because a High Court judge decided to not take advice on evidence presented is beyond absurd.
They were never declared inadmissible by a court of law, never.
Do you mean challenged in court or challenged during pre-trial hearings? Because of course they were challenged by the defence during the trial, but is it your belief that the defence never tried to get the evidence ruled as inadmissible pre-trial?
Hello everyone, new poster here. I thought it would be rude to just barge into the room unannounced so thought it best to start my own thread. I know it has been discussed previously and indeed currently here but I think etiquette requires me to introduce myself first.What do you think the dog alerts in the McCann case are evidence of?
I am quite new to the nuances of the case, only taking an active interest after the Netflix piece. Of course I knew of it before but never really had an opinion of what happened. I still am not convinced about any of the theories so I hope I will keep an open mind.
One thing that seems to keep coming up on this forum is the dogs alerts are not evidence. I can't understand this reasoning as there are many cases that have gone through UK courts that have included uncorroborated evidence from dog alerts. This surely makes them evidence. I know some will say, well Mr. Grime says they are not evidence but its not up to him to make that choice, it is surely up to the presiding judge to admit it as evidence or not. I can't see how its not evidence.
According to the NCCRC.. the judge was wrong to admit the evidence... I would say Gilroys poor defence compounded the issue.. Did Gilroys defence call any witnesses to challenge the alerts... Based on the fact that every expert I've heard does not support uncorroborated alerts
It doesn't matter what the SCCRC may have decided, they are not the deciding opinion. The deciding opinion will always be the rule of law. No court or decree has ever ruled the dog in the Gilroy case that gave an alert as inadmissible. They may in the future, who knows? But currently the facts stand that uncorroborated evidence from cadaver dogs have been allowed in a UK court. Can you not agree on that?Was admitted but later ruled inadmissible
It doesn't matter if Gilroys defence called any witness to rebut the evidence of the dog, because my point is that it was allowed as evidence in the first place. But you have got to imagine they did don't you.
Was admitted but later ruled inadmissibleOK but did that change the jury verdict. Is the person still found guilty?
What do you think the dog alerts in the McCann case are evidence of?
Was admitted but later ruled inadmissible
The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the flat where a missing child was last seen.So what would be their worth as evidence in trying to gain a conviction in a court of law, if they are only evidence of themselves?
Nothing more than that.
So what would be their worth as evidence in trying to gain a conviction in a court of law, if they are only evidence of themselves?
Who knows. That's how they were used in the cases of Suzzanne Piley and Margaret Fleming.I don’t think we need to put it to the jury to see why dog alerts should not be treated as evidence on their own.
A jury would decide their worth.
So the judge just decided to just wing it? Without expert advice? Do you know how much a case costs financially? To risk a case collapsing because a High Court judge decided to not take advice on evidence presented is beyond absurd.
They were never declared inadmissible by a court of law, never.
Do you mean challenged in court or challenged during pre-trial hearings? Because of course they were challenged by the defence during the trial, but is it your belief that the defence never tried to get the evidence ruled as inadmissible pre-trial?
I don’t think we need to put it to the jury to see why dog alerts should not be treated as evidence on their own.
Your or my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. The only relevant opinion is the presiding judge.
Could you provide a cite for your claim that the alerts were challenged by the defence during the trial...what experts were called to challenge them.
if the jusge isnt presented with the proper evidence he cannot make a correct decision
You can't be serious that you want me to find a cite for the defence challenging the testimony of the dog handler.
Do you think he stayed in his seat and said "No questions for this witness". Does that sound logical in anyway.
It doesn't matter anyway as my point is not that it was challenged but that it was presented before the court.
Take a step back and read my postings, all I am saying is that uncorroborated dog alerts have been presented as evidence before a court in the UK. I make no judgement if they should or not only, that they have.
you claimed the alerts were challenged yet you can supply no evidence to support taht statement.Isn't that the case in every trial? I've seen LA Law, they agree on the frames of reference, disclose what eachother has got, then scrap it out to let the judge determine what's admissible.
what you stated was...
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible.
you havent shown alerts are admissible...you have shown they were admitted in two cases..this doesnt mean alerts are admissible. Ive shown serious doubts against one.
imo they were admitted because they were not properly challenged...
The significance of the dog alerts is, in my opinion, directly related to the amount of energy expended by those who claim they're not significant. No other subject brings forth so many exhibiting so much denial.
For as long as individuals present sometimes complete misunderstanding of dog alerts sometimes deliberate lies as fact, other individuals will set the record straight. In my opinion that is the situation as far as your complaint is concerned.
As Alfie would say ~ Remember Zampo the Swedish cadaver dog and Thomas Quick the Swedish mass murderer who apparently was no such thing.
you claimed the alerts were challenged yet you can supply no evidence to support taht statement.
what you stated was...
As mentioned I only really need one case to prove that they are admissible.
you havent shown alerts are admissible...you have shown they were admitted in two cases..this doesnt mean alerts are admissible. Ive shown serious doubts against one.
imo they were admitted because they were not properly challenged...
I feel like I have stepped into the twilight zone here.
As I said its irrelevant if the defence challenged the alerts to my assertion that they were allowed in a UK court.
But if you can find that they didn't challenge the witness about the alerts then I will withdraw my belief that they did indeed challenge them.
Surely if I have shown that they were admitted in two case that they were admissible. I am confused. There are no serious doubts about the dogs in the Gilroy case. Show me one legal ruling that casts doubt on whether they should have been inadmissible.
I'm not confused.. The fact that they were admitted in two cases doesn't mean cadaver alerts are admissible evidence. As you now accept their admission may not have been properly challenged and they were possibly admitted in error. That would certainly be the opinion of the two experts on the recent podcast... One being professor Cassella.. A colleague of grime from staffs university
By the fact that were heard in court in front of a judge and jury deems them to be admissible. There can be no other definition for them. How would you define them then? Admissible or inadmissible or some other word?I would say they were admitted in that case... Whether that was a correct decision is open to question. ..according to the SCCRC they should not have been admitted....
I don't accept that their admission was not properly challenged and were admitted in error.
A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.
I would say they were admitted in that case... Whether that was a correct decision is open to question. ..according to the SCCRC they should not have been admitted....
How would you define them. Admissable or inadmissable? One of those two words will do.
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.
To be clear I am not saying the alerts are correct or incorrect. Only that they can be used in a UK court uncorroborated by forensic evidence. To show that such alerts are evidence I would only need one case but I have 3 in mind. The murders of Kate Prout, Susan Pilley and most recently Margaret Fleming. All had convictions without forensic confirmation or even a body.
For as long as individuals present sometimes complete misunderstanding of dog alerts sometimes deliberate lies as fact, other individuals will set the record straight. In my opinion that is the situation as far as your complaint is concerned.
As Alfie would say ~ Remember Zampo the Swedish cadaver dog and Thomas Quick the Swedish mass murderer who apparently was no such thing.
It's a matter of opinion that the dog alerts have been misunderstood. Opinions don't set records straight, facts do that. The facts are that dog alerts can be used as evidence in courts. We know that because it's been done and convictions have been secured.
Clearly inadmissible
It was stated that the Police Dogs are trained on Dead Pig so those bits of bones could be Pig Bones. Voila.
It doesn't matter what the SCCRC may have decided, they are not the deciding opinion. The deciding opinion will always be the rule of law. No court or decree has ever ruled the dog in the Gilroy case that gave an alert as inadmissible. They may in the future, who knows? But currently the facts stand that uncorroborated evidence from cadaver dogs have been allowed in a UK court. Can you not agree on that?
It doesn't matter if Gilroys defence called any witness to rebut the evidence of the dog, because my point is that it was allowed as evidence in the first place. But you have got to imagine they did don't you.
Please provide a cite substantiating your claim regarding Kate Prout as in my opinion you are entirely wrong on that one.
The situation regarding the evidence presented to the Margaret Fleming jury by dog handlers isn't as clear cut as you have intimated it is.
Given the claim that Margaret had run out of the back door as the police came in the front to start their investigation and the claim made by her carer that the police dogs would be unable to find her scent ...
Snip
Constable Kimberley Hill, a dog handler, was giving evidence at the trial of Edward Cairney, 77, and Avril Jones, 58, who deny murdering Margaret, when she was 19, at the home they shared at Seacroft, Main Road, Inverkip, between December 18, 1999 and January 5, 2000.
She told prosecutor Iain McSporran QC that she arrived at Seacroft at 8.30pm on October 28, 2016 and with her she had two German Shepherds, Roxy and Herbie, and a cocker spaniel named Bo.________________________________________________
Mr McSporran asked: “What did you tell Mr Cairney and Miss Jones,” and the police officer replied: “I explained how a dog search works and the information I required.
"I had been informed Margaret made off through the back of the house by divisional officers.
“Mr Cairney said the dog won't find any scent.
"He said she might have gone round the back and swung out onto the main road.”
Mr McSporran said: “His first instinct was to say the dog wouldn't find any scent,” and she replied: “Yes.”________________________________________________
Under cross examination by defence QC Thomas Ross, representing Cairney, Constable Hill admitted that there was only a limited time period for dogs to pick up scent.
Mr Ross said: “If Margaret had walked along a hard surface the scent would be gone by the time you got there,” and Constable Hill replied: “Yes.”
The court was told that the maximum time for scent to linger on grassy areas was about two hours.
The defence QC said: “There are some indications this happened at 5.40pm and you did not get there until 8.30pm, so Mr Cairney might have been correct when he said the dogs' chances of getting her was low,” and the police officer replied: “That's correct.”
https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/local/news/margaret-fleming-carer-told-police-sniffer-dogs-would-not-find-her-scent/
Snip
Almost 300 fragments of bone were discovered in the garden of the house where missing Margaret Fleming used to live, a murder trial has heard.
Analysis by Dr Helen Langstaff concluded that none of the fragments were recognisably human in origin.
Some were recognisable as animal, including deer, while most of the 298 fragments were too small to identify as anything other than bone.________________________________________________
Dr Langstaff, a forensic anthropologist, told the trial that she examined fragments of bone taken from a blackened area of earth in the garden of the property.
They included part of a hind foot of a deer, which showed signs that it had been exposed to heat.
Prosecutor Iain McSporran QC asked Dr Langstaff: "Could they be human," and she replied: "They could be and could not be."
She added that 298 bone fragments were found - some were fish in origin and some were animal in origin.
"Most were too small and fragmented to identify as anything other than bone," she said. "No bone fragments were found that were recognisably human in origin."________________________________________________
The jury heard that under the topsoil, a five-metre by four-metre area of blackened soil was found.
Under the blackened soil was a pile of rubble.
'No DNA obtained'
Ms Jones' QC Ian Duguid asked the anthropologist: "The rubble could have been created to burn things," and she replied: "It is not for me to say."
Dr Langstaff agreed with Mr Duguid that the bones could have been there for more than 20 years.
Forensic scientist Fiona McMahon said that she analysed the bone fragments but was unable to obtain any DNA from them.________________________________________________
The jury heard that under the topsoil, a five-metre by four-metre area of blackened soil was found.
Under the blackened soil was a pile of rubble.
Ms Jones' QC Ian Duguid asked the anthropologist: "The rubble could have been created to burn things," and she replied: "It is not for me to say."
Dr Langstaff agreed with Mr Duguid that the bones could have been there for more than 20 years.
Forensic scientist Fiona McMahon said that she analysed the bone fragments but was unable to obtain any DNA from them.________________________________________________
A former firefighter later told the court he smelled burning human flesh coming from a bonfire at the home of Mr Cairney and Ms Jones in 2008
Paul Neeson, 77, from Gourock, said the blaze lasted for days.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48513981
A police dog found two "decomposing scents" in the garden of two carers accused of murdering a woman they were looking after.
PC Ryan Galloway was part of a dog unit searching the home of Edward Cairney and Avril Jones.________________________________________________
PC Galloway, 42, said his black labrador Ollie found two possible decomposing scents in the garden close to the River Clyde.
This was in two cup-sized holes dug 18ins (46cm) apart and 24ins (61cm) deep.
PC Galloway said: "The dog's reaction was quite clear as his behaviour changed and he became more focused.
"He tilted his head back and started to bark.
"He is only trained to identify pig and human flesh."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-48275280
hi welcome to the forum there are some biased people on here but you will get used to it
Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I feel a bit like I have fallen down a hole somewhere. I didn't think my original post was even debatable. All the facts are there.
It gets a bit surreal here sometimes but some of us appreciate and agree with your posts. Keep up the good work because facts are what count imo.
Thanks for the welcome. Yeah, I feel a bit like I have fallen down a hole somewhere. I didn't think my original post was even debatable. All the facts are there.You started a thread about it, therefore you must have thought the subject was debatable, or did you expect only full agreement or complete silence?
You started a thread about it, therefore you must have thought the subject was debatable, or did you expect only full agreement or complete silence?
As i said PC Ryan Galloway testified that his dog alerted but no forensic evidence of any human remains were presented before the court.
In my opinion the three quotes taken from reports on the trial illustrate the way in which all the evidence presented knits together into evidence which was enough to secure the conviction for murder of both accused.
Dogs don't go along and bark and that's it ~ job done. I think it is incredible that there is any danger of that opinion becoming an accepted supposition.
The evidential clincher as far as I am concerned was the painstaking police search of the house which unearthed the evidence that the perpetrators were in London in the hotel at the time that letters had been posted purporting to be from Margaret but which her teacher attested could not have been written or dictated to another by her.
All the strands collected by the police and put together by the prosecution are what makes for a safe conviction. In my opinion there is no room for stand alone evidence and it is not in line with our system of justice that we ever know what evidence carries weight with a jury.
Light debate then full agreement.I agree they were admitted in evidence, whether they should have been admissible is a matter of opinion. What one judge might admit, another might not. It’s all opinion at the end of the day. Is that light and agreeable enough for you?
Do you agree that the uncorroborated dog alerts in the two cases are admissible evidence?
I agree they were admitted in evidence, whether they should have been admissible is a matter of opinion. What one judge might admit, another might not. It’s all opinion at the end of the day. Is that light and agreeable enough for you?
I am not arguing with anything above. Its not my point that the cadaver dogs handlers testimony was the crucial piece in the case, just that it was deemed admissible by the judge without any forensic evidence to proof the alert. I also think the evidence of the 2000 odd photos with was it only one or two of Margaret over 15 years was crucial also.Welcome "Col. Jessop"
From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged. The SCCRC hs confirmed in the Gilroy case that the alerts were inadmissible. Why should the Judge think not to admit a statement by a police officer unless it was challenged.
In the Fleming case the officer nor anyone else claimed it was human only that the dog alerted to decomposing scents,how can that be challenged? as another side note why on earth did the prosecution bring the ex fireman in.
I haven't listened to it... I was led to believe it wad, an example of a cadaver alert admitted, as evidence of cadaver..
Fron what you've said it wasnt
No it wasn't.
So it seems from the initial claim of many... We, are, down to one.... And this one ..as far as I know... Was, later, determined inadmissibleI'll bet there are an equal number of cases of admissible and inadmissible in North America and across Europe where dog evidence is used. There'll be dozens we don't now about both ways.
I'll bet there are an equal number of cases of admissible and inadmissible in North America and across Europe where dog evidence is used. There'll be dozens we don't now about both ways.
So we can be sure that the uncorroborated or corroborated evidence through alerts is routinely considered as a viable means of bolstering a case either way, although, obviously, usually in favour of the prosecution.
Although, let's not forget, a strategy, albeit a risky one, for a defence to use would be to allow the alerts, then bring their reliability in to question, thereby providing reasonable doubt. But tellingly, you don't hear too much of that going on.
I'll bet there are an equal number of cases of admissible and inadmissible in North America and across Europe where dog evidence is used. There'll be dozens we don't now about both ways.
So we can be sure that the uncorroborated or corroborated evidence through alerts is routinely considered as a viable means of bolstering a case either way, although, obviously, usually in favour of the prosecution.
Although, let's not forget, a strategy, albeit a risky one, for a defence to use would be to allow the alerts, then bring their reliability in to question, thereby providing reasonable doubt. But tellingly, you don't hear too much of that going on.
Cadaver dog alerts have never been accepted in an English court and it seems only once in a scottish court where they were later ruled inadmissibleDon't get your point. The precedent has been set. End of. The only reason why they haven't been considered more is purely down to opportunity. Reasons for lack of opportunity are numerous - sufficient physical evidence available, CPS decision, lack of dog handler units, lack of disappearances / deaths with circumstances requiring their use, the prevailing homicide rate, the other resources available to enforcement - guess what - vociferous, competent defence teams persuading a judge.
Cadaver dog alerts have never been accepted in an English court and it seems only once in a scottish court where they were later ruled inadmissible
Evidence from a VRD handler was heard in the Fleming case,it was not deemed inadmissible.
First the dog cannot be classed as a vrd dog because he hasn't been trained exclusively on human remains.
..see Grimes white paper.. What evidence was presented
Best take it up with the courts and the beeb then,the handler described the dog as a VRD dog.He said the dog alerted in two areas,the court including the defence were happy to accept this,the forensic's failed to determine what the decomposing alert was of.Two arees of ground were searched where the dog alerted,these presented minute pieces of bone which could not be determined from whence they came,save possibly a fragment of deer bone.
Welcome "Col. Jessop"
You may find it useful to read Martin Grime's white paper, particularly pages 60+/187 which make reference to court evidence. http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's vital to understand that Grime himself now concedes dogs trained using decomposing pork as a substitute for human remains cannot be classed as human remains detection dogs (see page 10/187) therefore (imo) uncorroborated alerts should not be admitted as evidence of residual cadaver odour in UK courts.
In USA judges apply the Daubert test when asked to consider canine evidence in court. US dogs are trained on human remains - there is no cross-training on decomposing pork products. IMO Eddie/Grime would not have met the US standards required in 2007/8 and UK-trained VRD's, both past & present, would not meet admissibility criteria.
So it was presented as evidence of death
I don't believe what I just read. Martin Grimes is saying that a dog trained on pig meat cannot be classed as a cadaver dog!!!
I don't believe what I just read. Martin Grimes is saying that a dog trained on pig meat cannot be classed as a cadaver dog!!!
The dog alerted to the smell of decomposition,this was not challenged,one thing to add is that the camera's were given unprecedented access to the court proceeding's,I'm sure that the edited version would have been presented to the interested parties before screening,ie;judge,both defence teams and prosecution.
Smell of decomposition... Not specifically human
Eddie was trained with human remains making him a EVRD.
He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Welcome "Col. Jessop"Thank you for the link I will definitely give it read. My point is not whether the alerts should be admissible but that they have been admissible in the past in the High Courts in the UK.
You may find it useful to read Martin Grime's white paper, particularly pages 60+/187 which make reference to court evidence. http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It's vital to understand that Grime himself now concedes dogs trained using decomposing pork as a substitute for human remains cannot be classed as human remains detection dogs (see page 10/187) therefore (imo) uncorroborated alerts should not be admitted as evidence of residual cadaver odour in UK courts.
In USA judges apply theDaubert test when asked to consider canine evidence in court. US dogs are trained on human remains - there is no cross-training on decomposing pork products. IMO Eddie/Grime would not have met the US standards required in 2007/8 and UK-trained VRD's, both past & present, would not meet admissibility criteria.
Thank you for the link I will definitely give it read. My point is not whether the alerts should be admissible but that they have been admissible in the past in the High Courts in the UK.Or Sideshow Bob.
Surely I should be Lt. Daniel Kafee not Jessop.
Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human sourceSo are you introducing reasonable doubt as the alerts are equally likely to be dead piglets? As a supposedly rational thinker, are you proposing that? You've already tacitly agreed that it's one of the two, by referring to the training methods.
Eddie was initially trained using piglets so he isn't exclusively trained in human source
From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged. The SCCRC hs confirmed in the Gilroy case that the alerts were inadmissible. Why should the Judge think not to admit a statement by a police officer unless it was challenged.
Or Sideshow Bob.
I haven't listened to it... I was led to believe it wad, an example of a cadaver alert admitted, as evidence of cadaver..
Fron what you've said it wasnt
You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.
Think about it. The dog handler can't say it was an alert to human decomposition in a High Court. He doesn't know that to be a truthful fact. He can just say his dog alerted to decomposition.
So it seems from the initial claim of many... We, are, down to one.... And this one ..as far as I know... Was, later, determined inadmissible
So are you introducing reasonable doubt as the alerts are equally likely to be dead piglets? As a supposedly rational thinker, are you proposing that? You've already tacitly agreed that it's one of the two, by referring to the training methods.
So the alert wasn't used to support the detection of human remains.. As it was in the pillay case
Eddie was trained with human remains making him a EVRD.
He has additionally trained exclusively using human remains in the U.S.A. in association with the F.B.I. The enhanced training of the dog has also involved the use of collection of 'cadaver scent' odor from human corpses using remote technical equipment which does not contact the subject.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Of course it was. The police witness was VRD dog handler. He wasn't testifying that his dog detected fish was he. Come on.
Take 10 minutes and watch the testimony of the dog handler on iplayer then we know we are all at the same level.
Doesn't really matter.. An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo and would not have been allowed if challenged
You hit the nail on the head.I don't see my opinion and irrelevant ..I've supplied a reason why I think they were admitted. Nothing posted in this or any other forum has any importance... Perhaps you don't realise that..
"An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo"
Your opinion is irrelevant in this matter. You are not a High Court Judge, unless you can tell me differently.
Please accept that it has been accepted in a High Court in the UK on at least two previous occasions.
Sorry but you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Eddie was trained using pig meat, that is the training he had,
to then to try and introduce him to a new scent is cross training in my opinion and Eddie was too old to be introduced to a new scent and to disregard what he had been trained on. IMO
The FBI accepted Eddie's competence as did a US judge. Your opinion is irrelevant.
I don't see my opinion and irrelevant ..I've supplied a reason why I think they were admitted. Nothing posted in this or any other forum has any importance... Perhaps you don't realise that..
Of course I accept they were admitted in these two cases... I'm saying that's because they weren't challenged
Again you make an assumption that they weren't challenged, where is this information from please share it with us.
I realise there is no importance in posting in a forum but I have posted 39 times you have post 35597 times, Maybe you should reflect on your own words above.
Sorry but you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Eddie was trained using pig meat, that is the training he had,
to then to try and introduce him to a new scent is cross training in my opinion and Eddie was too old to be introduced to a new scent and to disregard what he had been trained on. IMO
I find it hard to believe that there had been dead piglets in 5A, but perhaps I need to learn to think 'outside the box'? @)(++(*
I'll bet there are an equal number of cases of admissible and inadmissible in North America and across Europe where dog evidence is used. There'll be dozens we don't now about both ways.
So we can be sure that the uncorroborated or corroborated evidence through alerts is routinely considered as a viable means of bolstering a case either way, although, obviously, usually in favour of the prosecution.
Although, let's not forget, a strategy, albeit a risky one, for a defence to use would be to allow the alerts, then bring their reliability in to question, thereby providing reasonable doubt. But tellingly, you don't hear too much of that going on.
I find it hard to believe that there had been dead piglets in 5A, but perhaps I need to learn to think 'outside the box'? @)(++(*
Back on topic, please.
Members are asked to refrain from questioning why other members post here. In my opinion that is no-one's business but their own. TY
The FBI accepted Eddie's competence as did a US judge. Your opinion is irrelevant.
Why did Grime say that dogs trained on pig carcass cannot be classed as cadaver dogs?
What did Grime tell the FBI about Eddies training? That he was an 'Enhanced' cadaver dog? Well he shouldn't have according to him.
Fair enough, I apologise for any offence I may have caused. I don't want to be confrontational but boy its hard.
That's in the US... That's irrelevant
Bearing in mind that in North America there are States where K9 trainers are allowed to have access to human remains for training purposes and the dogs are trained solely on human remains and residual scent.
Even so there are stringent criteria in place for handlers and their dogs training and expertise before the handlers are allowed to testify about alerts in a case involving residual scent.
British dogs are trained using pigs.
I think Misty may have touched on the theme http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg568943#msg568943 but I've not yet had time to read the link she provided at http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
It makes you question whether Eddie could alert to human cadaver though doesn't it? In my opinion the only thing he could alert to was blood, and unlike Keela he could alert to the scent of blood that had been on something which was then taken away.
Why did Grime say that dogs trained on pig carcass cannot be classed as cadaver dogs?
What did Grime tell the FBI about Eddies training? That he was an 'Enhanced' cadaver dog? Well he shouldn't have according to him.
Be as confrontational as you like within the rules and it is a wee while since we had a dedicated dog thread on the forum and thanks to you it seems we've obviously been missing one.
Did he?
It was stated that the Police Dogs are trained on Dead Pig so those bits of bones could be Pig Bones. Voila.
Clever Eddie was able to impress in North America as he scored very highly in their tests, despite his early training on piglets.
In my opinion the reason for reliable cadaver dog handlers couching the dogs' findings in caveats is that it is impossible to be certain to what the dogs are alerting outwith a controlled environment and crime scenes do not come into that category.
It is perfectly possible the murderers had barbecued a pig in their fire pit ... that certainly would have provoked an alert from any British trained dog.
More utter nonsense!
Enhanced was after training with human remains,not hard to understand.
If that's the argument against specially trained dogs then it is really pathetic! These dogs are trained for one thing only in their life! To do their job right and are tested - the best do it every day. The dogs in this case don't alert over 10 times to a pig that doesn't exist! Of course the police think it's all related to the missing person and why so much time and resources have been spent on this case! SY bringing the dogs back to Luz was a clear message to naysayers!
No it doesn't. Eddie demonstrated his competence and once again, your opinion is irrelevant.
It may be irrelevant to you. I think it's a feather in the cap of the UK that one of their police dog trainers/handlers was so highly thought of by the FBI.
I Have a question I have wondered about.
UK dogs are trained on piglets as the scent is so similar to human and is proved by the fact that many human bodies have been found by them
If the scent is so similar do US dogs have the ability to react to decomposing pig flesh also.
A test was done, by Grime I do believe. All of the American dogs reacted to Pig Cadaver Scent.
I Have a question I have wondered about.
UK dogs are trained on piglets as the scent is so similar to human and is proved by the fact that many human bodies have been found by them
If the scent is so similar do US dogs have the ability to react to decomposing pig flesh also.
How many bodies have the dogs found... Again you say many... In his while career I believe eddie found 2
How many bodies have the dogs found... Again you say many... In his while career I believe eddie found 2
And I wasn't specifying 1 particular dog. I was talking about all UK trained dogs.Could you provide a cite for many bodies
Could you provide a cite for many bodies
OK I have no idea how many bodies have been found by UK dogs. You gave me a figure of 2 for Eddie so lets use that. All of the UK dogs that have ever been employed in search for human remains have found at least 2 bodies. Happy.Happy... Is another personal comment... Try and post within the rules... I'm merely keeping to the facts...
If that's the argument against specially trained dogs then it is really pathetic! These dogs are trained for one thing only in their life! To do their job right and are tested - the best do it every day. The dogs in this case don't alert over 10 times to a pig that doesn't exist! Of course the police think it's all related to the missing person and why so much time and resources have been spent on this case! SY bringing the dogs back to Luz was a clear message to naysayers!
Happy... Is another personal comment... Try and post within the rules... I'm merely keeping to the facts...
And I wasn't specifying 1 particular dog. I was talking about all UK trained dogs.
Any dog would find a buried body, a cadaver dog is trained on how to react when it finds one, sit for example or bark.
The problem arises when there is no body, as in the McCann case. Eddie would alert to blood. I believe that Eddie alerted to something that had blood on it and had been taken away.
So does that mean both UK and US dogs had the same level of competency in the field. ie both would react to the same types of scent. Surely that means any denigration of the UK dogs is unfounded.
Again one is enough.
I apologise for enquiring if you were happy with my answer.
I will endeavour not to do so again.
Apparently the scent is virtually identical.To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?
I don't have quite the same faith in cadaver Dogs as some.
One American Dog Handler in The Casey Anthony Case said that if there is no Human Cadaver Scent then the dog will react to the next best thing, even Urine.
Eddie was trained using pig cadaver, sorry a dog can't be trained again with something else, how would the dog know to use the smell of human cadaver and not pig that he was trained on?
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?
Interesting point.
If there is a device that can distinguish between human & porcine scents, who needs the dogs ?
That only measures chemical composition, not actual scent.
Loads and loads of folks ... worth using an internet search engine to confirm that.
Snip
Animal analogues, such as pigs, are typically used as alternative training aids. This project aimed to compare the visual decomposition and volatile organic compound (VOC) profile of human and pig remains in an Australian environment, to determine the suitability of pig remains as human odour analogues for cadaver-detection dog training. Four human cadavers and four pig carcasses were placed in an outdoor environment at the Australian Facility for Taphonomic Experimental Research (AFTER) across two seasons. Decomposition was monitored progressively in summer and winter. VOCs were collected onto sorbent tubes and analysed using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography – time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Visual observations highlighted the differences in decomposition rates, with pig remains progressing through all stages of decomposition, and human remains undergoing differential decomposition and mummification. Chemical and statistical analysis highlighted variations in the composition ... ... ...
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/eArGTmb8E387RsWnn6VH/full
To a dog or to human,if its a dog,who came up with that?
Ask a Dog Trainer. I don't know. But we are talking Cadaver here. A Rotting Pig or a Rotting Human.
It would seem as if specific training would be required,which if I'm not mistaken Grime took Eddie to the states for that reason,so following that with what could be described as logical thinking Eddie alerted to what he was trained for and apart from that what chance and unfathomable reason would Redwood came up with "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".
It would seem as if specific training would be required,which if I'm not mistaken Grime took Eddie to the states for that reason,so following that with what could be described as logical thinking Eddie alerted to what he was trained for and apart from that what chance and unfathomable reason would Redwood came up with "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".
Grime did not take Eddie to America while he was still employed by The UK Police. It would not have been allowed.
Then why does his statement dated 23/08/2007 indicate he did?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It was suspected Maddie hadn't left the apartment alive before the dogs were brought in
Could we have sight of this statement, please.
It was suspected Maddie hadn't left the apartment alive before the dogs were brought in
What other plausible reason is there for Redwood DCI at the time to consider the operational reason behind the "There is always the potential Madeleine never left the apartment alive".it was always an option from day one...thats why the dogs were brought in
it was always an option from day one...thats why the dogs were brought in
You are not the High Court judge, you don't get to decide if they were incorrectly admitted.Any judge worth their salt would surely have to rule uncorroborated dog alerts as inadmissable. I can’t see how they could possibly be considered evidence as there is no proof of what the dog alerted to. It’s akin to witch drowning IMO.
Please stop using the SCCRC reference, it carries no legal weight, no one has seen it, they shelved it, never publicly published it, its not even on their website and never put it to an appeal court.
The judge has at his discretion the ability to rule evidence inadmissible if he thinks it may prejudice a fair trial.
it was always an option from day one...thats why the dogs were brought in
Enhanced was after training with human remains,not hard to understand.How was Eddie trained NOT to alert to pigs after being trained to alert to them?
How was Eddie trained NOT to alert to pigs after being trained to alert to them?
How many pigs are missing from 5a?
So the dogs must have had some kind of provenance to be brought in.I suspect I'm right in saying at the time the PJ never had such like,so some one recommended Grime and Harrison from the British side.
How many pigs are missing from 5a?How many trolls does it take to change the subject? There was tv footage shown recently of a UK police cadaver dog barking its head off on a search for human remains and its handler dismissing the alert because the dog had found a dead bird. Was it a pig with wings, or are cadaver dogs prone to barking whenever they smell something a bit whiffy? The handler rewarded the dog for its false alert too.
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.The term appears only ever to have been used by Grime about his own dog.
How many trolls does it take to change the subject? There was tv footage shown recently of a UK police cadaver dog barking its head off on a search for human remains and its handler dismissing the alert because the dog had found a dead bird. Was it a pig with wings, or are cadaver dogs prone to barking whenever they smell something a bit whiffy? The handler rewarded the dog for its false alert too.
What programme was that?I can’t remember, someone else will know. It was in the last year and discussed on here.
Makes one wonder what was said in the press conference @ 18:13 on the 19/03/2014 the Guardian reports
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.
later on the same day at 21:03
However, Redwood did say during the same press conference that police were considering the possibility that Madeleine was not alive when taken from the apartment as well as the possibility that she was.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-breakthrough-attacks-family
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/mar/19/madeleine-mccann-police-intruder-girls-algarve
So unless OG actually went into 5a and there's no evidence they did apart from the dogs what else have they used?
The term appears only ever to have been used by Grime about his own dog.
Simple logic
Any judge worth their salt would surely have to rule uncorroborated dog alerts as inadmissable. I can’t see how they could possibly be considered evidence as there is no proof of what the dog alerted to. It’s akin to witch drowning IMO.
Just did.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Tells him what,That death in the apt is an option
That date in August 2007 is the date of the Portuguese Search Report.
Where does it say that Eddie was taken to America while Martin Grime was still employed by The UK Police? And prior to August 2007.
That death in the apt is an option
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.
Thats a question for Grime,I'm pointing out the enhanced comes from being trained on human cadaver,unless someone can come up with another reason to being a EVRD as opposed to being a VRD.Marketing.
Marketing.
The E was added after Grime attempted to train Eddie on Pig Cadaver. Until then Eddie was only trained on Blood.
That date in August 2007 is the date of the Portuguese Search Report.
Where does it say that Eddie was taken to America while Martin Grime was still employed by The UK Police? And prior to August 2007.
The E was added after Grime attempted to train Eddie on Pig Cadaver. Until then Eddie was only trained on Blood.
He states clearly in his statement of August 2007...
He (Eddie) has additionally trained exclusively using
human remains in the U.S.A.
Not before August 2007 it doesn't. Eddie was taken to America after The Jersey Debacle.
Or was Martin Grime in contact with and employed by The FBI while still employed by The UK Police.
Is there any thing to suggest he was employed by the FBI at the time of being employed by the UK Police,training would not mean he was employed in the US.
Eh?
For what purpose would marketing be involved in allowing his dogs to used in Luz?
It says so in that link you posted.
How many pigs are missing from 5a?
In association with the FBI,doesn't mean he was employed by them.It doesn't make clear he was employed by any force at the time of the dogs in Luz,only saying dog trainer.
Mark Harrison.July 2007.
An EVRD dog received additional training on human cadavers which were buried on land and submerged underwater. This took place in America and facilitated by the FBI at the University of Tennessee
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
ANY dog would find a buried body. ANY dog would smell a body in water too.
They can? blooming dogs must be a nightmare in churchyards.Dogs should not be taken for walks in churchyards to piss and poo all over graves. A mark of extreme disrespect imo.
You don't get it do you? Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver. So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times. Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.
How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried? He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?
I think Grime is wrong when he says Eddie only barks when he detects target scent... I think he barks when he think... I've had enough of this I want to go home
That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.
That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.
That is clearly untrue because he didn't get to stop after barking, he had to carry on the search.
You don't get it do you? Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver. So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times. Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.
How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried? He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?
dogs are smarter then humans give them credit for my sister and brother both have dogs and their dogs can sense i have type one diabetes and other disabilities xxx@)(++(*. Some humans, maybe... Was the dog able to diagnose your diabetes, or did a human train it to alert to the smell of your diabetes?
Grime did not take Eddie to America while he was still employed by The UK Police. It would not have been allowed.
He knew he wasn't going to get out of 5a without barking... He was repeatedly called back...
You are not an expert on how to use these dogs, so your opinion is irrelevant.I might be absolutely right... Can you prove I'm not
I might be absolutely right... Can you prove I'm not
They can? blooming dogs must be a nightmare in churchyards.
Do you think if you were walking your dog and a newly dead person had been buried near by, your dog wouldn't go off and sniff at the newly buried cadaver? Of course it would it would be able to smell the cadaver, the cadaver dog however would give an alert either by sitting by it or by barking.
As for the water any dog would know there was a dead body in the water, the only difference is a trained cadaver dog is meant to give an alert to it.
When Eddie alerted to the body buried, how long at the person been dead? If Madeleine had died in 5a, she wouldn't have been left there long enough to give off any cadaver scent. IMO
So you agree they would need additional training.
The training used triggers a Pavlovian response. Cadaver dogs are conditioned to signal when they detect that which they are trained to detect. They don't choose to respond or even think about it; it's not voluntary.
You don't know it's that precise....
You want to spend pages arguing about Pavlovian conditioning?
You should know that I don't. I don't accept the alerts as being totally accurate and neither does Prof Casselles who write the forward, to Grimes white, paper
You want to spend pages arguing about Pavlovian conditioning?
How many pigs are missing from 5a?
There's only one person missing from 5a in as yet unexplained circumstances,the only apartment where the dogs alert,tis some coincidence.
It might seem a coincidence ti those who don't understand the true facts
Which is very very limited,so much as to not be able to come up with a definite theory.
Rowley:So, you’ll understand from your experience, the way murder investigations work, detectives will
start off with various hypotheses, about what’s happened in a murder, what has happened in a
missing person’s investigation, whether someone has been abducted. All those different possibilities
will be worked through. This case is no different from that but the evidence is limited at the moment to
be cast iron as to which one of those hypotheses we should follow. So we have to keep an open
mind. As I said we have some critical lines of enquiry, those linked to particular lines of enquiry, but
I’m not going to discuss them today because they are very much live investigations.
There's plenty of facts relating to the alerts by the dogs
Grines statement that he didn't realise the car, plastered with posters belonged to the mccanns takes some explaining
The dog couldn't read them though.
The training used triggers a Pavlovian response. Cadaver dogs are conditioned to signal when they detect that which they are trained to detect. They don't choose to respond or even think about it; it's not voluntary.
Perhaps that's why he ignored the car until being called back
The problem with that being?
https://www.murderscience.com/articles/2018/1/29/cadaver-dogs-
The problem being that in Grimes statement he says in passing the car the dog showed a particular interest in it... He didn't... He ignored it.. What's your explanation
Still don't understand your issue.
No problem... I'm sure others, do... Hers the actual quote..
When passing a
vehicle I now know to be hired and in the possession of the McCann family,
the dog's behaviour changed substantially.
Ok,lets try another way,are there set parameters that a dog handler must adhere to,if so can you post it to let us cross reference and see where the issue is.My issue is Grimes statement doesn't tally with the facts... I'm sure that's a reasonable explanation I just can't see it
The problem being that in Grimes statement he says in passing the car the dog showed a particular interest in it... He didn't... He ignored it.. What's your explanation
So Grime's opinion is that the dog's behavour changed significantly as he passed the McCann's hire car. Your opinion is that it didn't. Grime spent years training and working with Eddie, so we can assume he would notice things that might not be obvious or significant to others. Others like you, for example.
So Grime's opinion is that the dog's behavour changed significantly as he passed the McCann's hire car. Your opinion is that it didn't. Grime spent years training and working with Eddie, so we can assume he would notice things that might not be obvious or significant to others. Others like you, for example.
Yet Grine didn't notice all the posters of Maddie on the car... Strange isn't it
He approached the car from the front. How many posters were there and were there any on the windscreen?He said he.. Now knows.... Must have seen the posters at the time.
That's your explanation... It doesn't really fit imo.
The dog simply toddled straight past the, car showing no interest at all... And needed to be called back.. Have you watched the video
The video clearly shows what happens. A little summary:
52:22 - MG calling Eddie back to a car
52:32 - MG calling Eddie back to the next car
53:12 - Eddie's behaviour changes at the hire car and he is then seen chasing a scent. MG now starts to investigate the source of that scent. Eddie positively alerts at the hire car.
Yes thanks for that. .the video I posted clearly shows eddie passing the car with no change in behaviour... Then being called back... Perhaps it's the act of calling back that triggers the alert..
Another paper with an interesting conclusion.
http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=ant_facpub
Yes, very interesting barrier, but those dogs were trained with human cadaver.
He called Eddie back to the first 2 cars as I've pointed out in my post. Eddie will not alert unless he finds what he is trained to find. The source of that scent was coming from inside the hire car.
Which Eddie was.
No he was trained with pig flesh, you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh. Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver.
No he was trained with pig flesh, you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh. Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver.
No he was trained with pig flesh, you can't train a dog to alert to a different scent having trained him from a pup to alert to pigs flesh. Pig has been found to smell differently from human cadaver.
No point in having dogs not trained on human cadaver then.
This from a woman who has trained cadaver dogs - They'd been using pigs as training aids for years. But as Cablk points out, "If you have a dog trained on pigs, then you have a dog trained to find dead pigs."
Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.
Does anyone believe that The UK Police allowed one of their Dog Handlers to take one of their Dogs to America to engage in practices that are Illegal and Unethical in Britain even to this day.
Martin Grime did not own Eddie at the time. So who paid for this expensive exercise, which incidentally will not have eradicated Eddie's training in Blood and later Pig Cadaver?
Does anyone believe that The UK Police allowed one of their Dog Handlers to take one of their Dogs to America to engage in practices that are Illegal and Unethical in Britain even to this day.
Martin Grime did not own Eddie at the time. So who paid for this expensive exercise, which incidentally will not have eradicated Eddie's training in Blood and later Pig Cadaver?
How about Portugal?
Enhanced is the qualifier.
Martin Grime had already retired by then and was given Eddie to take with him into retirement, to do with as he pleased. Besides, he wasn't engaged in Illegal Practices in Portugal.
So using EVRD's in Portugal is ok but you surmise it is and wouldn't be in the UK?
This is not logical.
The Illegal Act would have been in taking the dog to America to engage in something that is Illegal in Britain while owned by The UK Police. They simply would not have given permission while the dog belonged to them.
What a private citizen does is a different matter.
He called Eddie back to the first 2 cars as I've pointed out in my post. Eddie will not alert unless he finds what he is trained to find. The source of that scent was coming from inside the hire car.
Not before August 2007 it doesn't. Eddie was taken to America after The Jersey Debacle.
Or was Martin Grime in contact with and employed by The FBI while still employed by The UK Police.
You don't get it do you? Eddie wasn't trained using human cadaver he was trained using pig cadaver. So when he searched 5a he didn't smell human cadaver or pig cadaver and that is why he trotted off out of the bedroom to be called back numerous times. Poor Eddie I think he just had another sniff and thought 'I think I can smell blood' and barked.
How would that search happen outside where Grime wouldn't know where a cadaver was buried? He wouldn't have been able to call Eddie back to every bush and tree to keep sniffing at them would he?
Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.
Or a dead pig was placed behind a curtain, in a cupboard, in a car all belonging to the McCanns where a child disappeared. Perhaps the previous occupants could explain this. what the hell were they doing with a dead pig- which let's face it, can't be hidden very well. I mean someone would notice surely. And of course we have to facto in the dead pig wearing soiled nappies... Just to make THAT story stick.
You are mistaken Lace. Eddie received specialist training in America use human cadavers prior to being deployed in PdL.
So when Eddie alerted in 5a it might well have been to a human cadaver scent.
So The UK Police authorised this trip and paid for it, did they? The dog did not belong to Martin Grime until he retired.
Who else did?
Who else did what?
Which makes it obvious why Grime took Eddie to the US to train using human cadaver,one step ahead it would seem.So then you have a dog that alerts to blood and pigs and humans?
Well, the fact is they never did find a dead pig or a human. Mind you the blood found behind the curtain wasn't from a lone pig on the loose...Was it Madeleine’s?
You are mistaken Lace. Eddie received specialist training in America use human cadavers prior to being deployed in PdL.
So when Eddie alerted in 5a it might well have been to a human cadaver scent.
Paid and authorised Grime and his dogs.
Or a dead pig was placed behind a curtain, in a cupboard, in a car all belonging to the McCanns where a child disappeared. Perhaps the previous occupants could explain this. what the hell were they doing with a dead pig- which let's face it, can't be hidden very well. I mean someone would notice surely. And of course we have to facto in the dead pig wearing soiled nappies... Just to make THAT story stick.
This from a woman who has trained cadaver dogs - They'd been using pigs as training aids for years. But as Cablk points out, "If you have a dog trained on pigs, then you have a dog trained to find dead pigs."
ALL cadaver dogs alert to pig so you are not making a point here.
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The only dead animal they alert to is pig.
Now you are being facetious. Obviously there was no dead pig in these areas, neither was there cadaver scent IMO In the bedroom Eddie dismissed the room and walked away, if it hadn't been for Martin Grime calling him back he wouldn't have alerted to the room. IMO Eddie smelt something probably blood that been on something and had then been removed. Or he decided to bark so that he could put an end to the search.
Eddie alerted to the exact spot that Keela did behind the sofa, so there again Eddie alerted to blood.
There were families in 5a after the McCann's.
They have been tested and SY did not search Luz for a dead pig.
Pigs and primates may be closer than we thought
https://www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs
" Obviously there was no dead pig in these areas, neither was there cadaver scent IMO"
Obviously? in your opinion? well there you have it. Evidence would be better than your opinion.
Ask the experts. It is well known that they only alert to pig.
Would you accept a pig's heart?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20140508-would-you-accept-a-pigs-heart
Im happy to accept they alert to pigs...Do thye alert to a dead bird...have they been tested ....NO
Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval. Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination). The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51385143_Cadaver_dogs_-_A_study_on_detection_of_contaminated_carpet_squares
dogs used at airports alert to 100s of things
They are also used to identify cancer in humans.
Amazing dog story- Indulge me.
My friend was told many years ago she could not have children- she and her husband got a dog. a spaniel as a pup. 10 years after being told about her childless state. her pup began to act very strange. He barked at anyone including her husband who went near her, he became very possessive ,followed her everywhere-which was a complete change in his personality- they took him to the vet, thinking he may have head tumor or something- however the vet told my friend should go to the Doctors as the dog senses something- being terrified but going. a week later the results were she was three months pregnant! when baby was born healthy, the dog became very possessive about the baby! like a nanny.
Dogs have all the senses we may have lost over the years. Including the 6th!
Was it Madeleine’s?
I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.
I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.I expect their olfactory senses are just as good as dogs as well. Sadly it seems their are losing their 6th sense when it comes to the crocs though... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/14/fatal-crocodile-attacks-rising-in-northern-territory-data-shows
Perhaps this man was just very lucky to have retained his 6th sense if you use an internet search engine you will find that very many indigenous people in Australia have fallen prey to crocodiles.ooh, snap! (Sorry, that was a bit tasteless in the circs).
Snip
A 12-year-old boy is thought to have been eaten by a crocodile in Australia's Northern Territories, in the second fatal attack to take place in two weeks, reports the BBC.
The youngster, who is thought to have come from a Aboriginal community near Port Bradshaw in East Arnhem Land, was swimming with a group of family and friends when he was attacked by the reptile.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2012-12-02/crocodile-devours-12-year-old-australian-boy-second-fatal-attack-two-weeks
ALL cadaver dogs alert to pig so you are not making a point here.
In my role as advisor to the U.S. Justice Department I have facilitated assessment of numerous cadaver search dog teams in the United States. These dogs are exclusively trained using human cadaver sources. When I introduced decomposing pig cadavers into training assessments 100 % of the animals alerted to the medium.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I saw a TV programme which showed an Australian aborigine man fishing with his fairly young children. When asked if it was safe as there were crocodiles in the river he said they used their sixth sense. According to him he knew whether he was in danger at any point and he had taught his children to be aware just as he was. He said everyone has the ability but most of us don't use it any more.
There are only seven compounds that pig and a human both share and they are only memitted when the pig or human are in the late stages of decomposition.
Decomposing pig, Madeleine wouldn't have been decomposing that's my point, any dog would alert to decomposing pig as there is a gas which smells like human cadaver when the pig is at a stage of decomposition. Madeleine wouldn't have been at this stage. Those cadaver dogs as I have said would alert to a buried body or pig as would Eddie as would any dog as the smell of decomposing is strong, there was no body in 5a and if Madeleine had died there she wouldn't have been left to decompose.
I thought decomposition began immediately?
It isn't detectable by dogs immediately
How do you know?
I think that's quite a silly question
This us one area where there has been some scientific research... Try and Google to find it
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.Has it not been long accepted when discussing this case that it takes at least 90 minutes (though two hours seems the more accepted time) before a body emits an odour detectable to thr dogs?
Has it not been long accepted when discussing this case that it takes at least 90 minutes (though two hours seems the more accepted time) before a body emits an odour detectable to thr dogs?
It isn't detectable by dogs immediately
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.
why should i bother...from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you...even if its overwhelmingYou've just spent a week arguing that the alerts were inadmissible as evidence, not inadmissible as intelligence.
the thread title...according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence
You've just spent a week arguing that the alerts were inadmissible as evidence, not inadmissible as intelligence.
Accepted by whom? You?Those who discuss this case, sceptic and supporter alike, I guess this is news to you?
Seems it is.Do you have a cite to support your contention that dogs can detect a cadaver that has been in situ for less than 90 minutes?
https://www.aftermath.com/content/body-decomposition-smell/
Answering the question, “what does a dead body smell like?” can be difficult if you have never been around a dead body before. However, some people compare the putrid stench of a decomposing body to that of rotting fruit. When someone dies, the body immediately begins the decomposition process and the smell of death begins. Microorganisms create and emit various gases during the stages of human decomposition, which all combine to cause the smell of a cadaver.
why should i bother...from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you...even if its overwhelming
the thread title...according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"
Is this irony.
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"
Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?
Was there even any blood there? I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got it wrong but wasn't the only blood found on the tiles from one of the PJ guys who lifted the tiles after both dogs had done what they were trained to do in that area of the room?
I've already posted this... Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact
My opinion is that they should not have been and if properly challenged would not be.. In the gilroy case I have seen evidence that the SCCRC decided they should not have been admitted
Your opinion is that they are admissible... Mine is that they are not. Don't misrepresent my posts
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.Davel has written "Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact" he just doesn't think they should be so what are you struggling to understand?
It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
How can they be evidence when Grime and Harrisin refer to them as intelligence with no evidential reliability or value
They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.
Davel has written "Alerts have been admitted in two cases... Fact" he just doesn't think they should be so what are you struggling to understand?
They can be evidence as they have been presented before a court of law in the UK on at least 2 occasions previously.The fact that they were admitted on these two occasions does not mean they are admissible...the judge may have erred..
Grime and Harrison aren't the deciding opinion on what is admissible evidence or not. I have already explained this.
The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.
The worth of the alerts in the Margaret Fleming case was exposed for what it was - totally worthless, IMO.
No he still believes dog alerts with no corroborating forensic evidence are inadmissible in a court of law.
Quote from today at 11:50
".according to just about evry expert the alerts are intelligence not evidence "
Lets not mess around with semantics, they are either admissible evidence or inadmissible evidence there is no third way. Not that they have been admitted previously in two cases. I am not arguing if they should or not only that they are.
Never the less irrespective of your opinion they were not deemed inadmissible which is Davel's contention.
Rubbish. They were deemed admissible.... An error imo
The worth of the alerts can only be measured by how the jury viewed them.You or I don't know what weight the jury applied to the testimony of PC Ryan Galloway. Unless you were there.I saw it presented on the TV documentary and no body in their right mind would have drawn the conclusion that the dog discovered any human remains, unless they left the bit out where he revealed that a bit of Margaret's skeleton was discovered?
Were you?
I saw it presented on the TV documentary and no body in their right mind would have drawn the conclusion that the dog discovered any human remains, unless they left the bit out where he revealed that a bit of Margaret's skeleton was discovered?
Rubbish. They were deemed admissible.... An error imo
But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.
Correct they were deemed admissible,your opinion counts for nothing,The Judge,the defence allowed them,one defence lawyer never even questioned the handler.
But that not my assertion,my assertion only that it was admitted. And that is a empirical truth not my opinion.I'm not disputing that, but I was giving my opinion, and you questioned my opinion, to which I gave an answer.
we are getting somewhere...they were admitted...but it seems not challenged. As I understand there were two dogs and only one alerted....that is strange in itself
If we're talking of the Margaret Fleming murder trial,I don't recall talk of two dogs.
I'm not disputing that, but I was giving my opinion, and you questioned my opinion, to which I gave an answer.
I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.
I don't remember asking your opinion if the evidence had any worth. In this thread I am only interested in the truth that alerts are admissible. I am not saying your opinion is of no interest to me just that in this matter I didn't seek it.I don't care if you sought it or not, nor do I care if you're interested in it or not. I will say it again. The dog evidence in the Margaret Fleming case had no worth as evidence and should not have been entered. IMO.
I don't care if you sought it or not, nor do I care if you're interested in it or not. I will say it again. The dog evidence in the Margaret Fleming case had no worth as evidence and should not have been entered. IMO.
"from past experience you dont accept evidence if it doesnt suit you"
Is this irony?
You simply will not accept the empirical fact that dog alerts uncorroborated by forensic evidence have been and are admissible in a UK Court of Law. For what reason you don't accept this fact is beyond me.
I see that posters are classified mostly either a sceptic or a believer on this site so are there any posters who share Davel's belief that they are not evidence. I don't mean that they think they shouldn't be but think they are definitely not admissible in a UK court?
Without anything else, yep, Moi.
I apologise if I offended you, it wasn't my intention all. I was pointing out was that I don't remember asking for it in this matter. Even though you say you don't care if I am interested or not in your opinion I assure you I am as your opinions seem reasoned and thought out.Flattery will get you everywhere! 8((()*/
When I say uncorroborated by forensic evidence I refer to forensic evidence that confirms the alert, ie human remains not other evidence such as witness statements that don't concern the dog alert.
I am not saying dog alerts should be the basis and only evidence used to prosecute anyone.
In the Fleming case it can't be known what notice was taken of the dog alerts when the jury deliberated,what was of note was the defence at no time tried to rubbish the dog alerts,merely to question what rewards were given to positive results and were they rewarded in this case.I think the defence very effectively rubbished the dog alerts - the bones uncovered as a result of the elerts were belonging to a deer and a fish as I recall.
the fact that the alerts were admitted does not make them admissible as they were not challenged.
had the alerts been challenged and experts called...it would be a total diferrent scenario
I think the defence very effectively rubbished the dog alerts - the bones uncovered as a result of the elerts were belonging to a deer and a fish as I recall.
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.Davel is right, even when he's wrong - and in fact you will be wrong.
It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
Please can someone help me out. How can I explain to Davel that if they have been admitted in 2 previous cases they are admissible evidence. Maybe I am using the wrong words. Someone here who Davel respects must be able to explain it to him as it really is getting ridiculous now.
It is not my opinion that they are admissible it is an indisputable fact that they are admissible.
So was it the defence or the prosecution who questioned the police officer about the bones discovered and established that they were from animals?
Nothing to do with defence that was forensics,what could not be determined was there any human remains,not all were determined, those being to small.The judge rightly pointed out at the start,defendants are innocent once charged until or unless proven guilty,that burden is on the prosecution to prove it'll not be known if the alerts had any sway on the jury in deciding the guilt.But guilty they were found.
Try supporting your postings of 'facts' by some evidence.
You need to define what you mean by admissible...in my view being admitted in two cases does not make them admissible ....
whether they are admissible has not been established as they have not been challenged
The judge decided that the evidence was admissible or in other words it was relevant and not excluded by any rules.
The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.
Therefore it cannot be said that the evidence was inadmissible, because if it was it wouldn't have been heard. Period.
In the Omagh bombing case... LCN DNA was admitted untilnit was challenged... Once challenged it was ruled inadmissible and the trial stopped
The evidence was admissible in that particular case bevause the defence didnt challenge it from what i can see. Had it been challenged on the basis that the alerts are not evidential.......then how can something that is not evidential be admitted as evidence
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.
Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.How do you decide which alerts are reliable and which are not in the absence of any forensic evidence?
Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'not evidential'. Evidence is something that is used in court to support the arguments of the prosecution or defence. I think what you mean is that in your opinion the alerts are unreliable and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence.
Your opinion seems to be that all alerts are unreliable, but there are some which aren't. It's not acceptable in my opinion to generalise. Each case is different, each dog is different, each handler is different and there are different levels of expertise. They should be judged on their individual merits, not as a group.
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.
And yet the indications have been used as evidence in two High Court murder trials. Maybe the High Court judge is the higher authority than Mark Harrison. What do you think?
It's been used because it hasn't been challenged.. Is the judge an authority on cadaver dog alerts... What knowledge does he have
You do realise that if any evidence used in any trial was thought to inadmissible and admitted in error by a judge,the judiciary would order retrials immediately. The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High court judges of such alerts. You are just in denial.
Can you provide a cite for..
The whole of the UK judiciary having no problem with the acceptance of these alerts..
Yes by the fact the judgements stand.Pathetic..
Pathetic..
How do you decide which alerts are reliable and which are not in the absence of any forensic evidence?
The training, assessing and operational records of the team should be available. They indicate the skills and reliability of the team. A team with a good record is likely to be correct when the dog alerts.
The training, assessing and operational records of the team should be available. They indicate the skills and reliability of the team. A team with a good record is likely to be correct when the dog alerts.What constitutes a good record, and who independently tests and verifies any dog team’s reliability?
What is?You winning the argument,it would seem.
Pathetic..Stings, doesn't it. Being wrong and admitting it to yourself. That's the hard part.
Stings, doesn't it. Being wrong and admitting it to yourself. That's the hard part.I'm absolutely correct
You do realise that if any evidence used in any trial was thought to inadmissible and admitted in error by a judge,the judiciary would order retrials immediately. The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High court judges of such alerts. You are just in denial.
I'm absolutely correctSee.
What of early stages then?
dogs used at airports alert to 100s of things
Stings, doesn't it. Being wrong and admitting it to yourself. That's the hard part.
Unlesss you or others can show that every high court judge in the UK regards the alerts as admissible evidence...then I've plainly won the argumnetSo you've decided to forget about the 'admissibility' aspect as a concept, as you know you've lost that battle, and decided to winkle out a blanket statement that you're pretty sure is unverifiable; attack from that angle. Nice strategy, but utterly transparent and futile.
So you've decided to forget about the 'admissibility' aspect as a concept, as you know you've lost that battle, and decided to winkle out a blanket statement that you're pretty sure is unverifiable; attack from that angle. Nice strategy, but utterly transparent and futile.
No.. I've answered the point raised... If the claim is unverifiable which you have confirmed... It should be withdrawn. Your continued pathetic personal attacks show I'm clearly winning the argument
Pathetic..
Hmmmm. Awkward.
You agree the the point is unverifiable yet the poster compounded it by claiming his pathetic response was a cite.I do agree that throwaway remark is unverifiable; a fact which I'm pretty sure the poster was aware of.
What's the problem with that
I do agree that throwaway remark is unverifiable; a fact which I'm pretty sure the poster was aware of.
He / she is probably unaware of the pedantic nature of some. He / she is now.
Seems it is."the body immediately begins the decomposition process" but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.
https://www.aftermath.com/content/body-decomposition-smell/
Answering the question, “what does a dead body smell like?” can be difficult if you have never been around a dead body before. However, some people compare the putrid stench of a decomposing body to that of rotting fruit. When someone dies, the body immediately begins the decomposition process and the smell of death begins. Microorganisms create and emit various gases during the stages of human decomposition, which all combine to cause the smell of a cadaver.
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process" but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process" but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.
It is only at the later stages of decomposition that the compounds in a rotting pig emits a gas that smells like the gas of a human cadaver also in the later stages of decomposition. Therefore Eddie didn't scent cadaver in 5a as no way if Madeleine had died in 5a would she have been in the later stages of decomposition before removed from 5a.
"the body immediately begins the decomposition process" but is not immediately detectable from the evidence I've seen.
As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.
It is only at the later stages of decomposition that the compounds in a rotting pig emits a gas that smells like the gas of a human cadaver also in the later stages of decomposition. Therefore Eddie didn't scent cadaver in 5a as no way if Madeleine had died in 5a would she have been in the later stages of decomposition before removed from 5a.
Not necessarily. It was only in the later stages that scientists were able to isolate certain compounds that the cadavers have in common. Obviously dogs have alerted to places from which relatively fresh cadavers were removed. How about Suzanne Pilley?
As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.
Oh dear... Prof Cassesella questioned the validity if the alertsDid he though? He confirms that they're widely used (Ep7 - 06.30), confirms that they're alerting to whatever it is their trained to alert to (07.47), then accepts that a conclusion must be drawn (08.42), where they are to be trusted or is the dog 'having a bad day'.
Oh dear... Prof Cassesella questioned the validity if the alerts
There are people who question the validity of dog alerts and people who support their validity. It must be a source of annoyance in my opinion that forensic scientists can't explain how these dogs do it.I think you are in total denial.... It's the experts.. Prof Cassella... Mark Harrison... Martin Grime ...who have questioned the validity of the alerts
Eddie wouldn't have as Eddie was trained on dead pig. Don't tell me that Eddie could miraculously be changed from detecting dead pig to suddenly be able to detect a human cadaver, the only way that would happen is if the human cadaver is in the final stages of decomposition.
More nonsense because all cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver. If you think SY murder team are investigating a missing pig then dream on.
So the dogs must have alerted to........the rotting carcasses of pigs - only in 5a apartment.
All cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver only in the last stages of decomposition. Madeleine if she had died in 5a wouldn't have been left on the floor until she was in the last stages of decomposition.
So the dogs must have alerted to........the rotting carcasses of pigs - only in 5a apartment.
So the dogs must have alerted to........the rotting carcasses of pigs - only in 5a apartment.
It's much simpler than that... It seems the dogs alert when called back three times....So are you suggesting that Martin Grime is a fraud?
So are you suggesting that Martin Grime is a fraud?Absolutely not I think I understand exactly why he did it
Absolutely not I think I understand exactly why he did itI don't think he did do it. I think you're exaggerating.
I don't think he did do it. I think you're exaggerating.
As dogs can smell things that humans can't, it's possible that dogs can detect the scent immediately.Although we’ve never seen their wings, it’s possible that dogs are just keeping them hidden from us and could fly if they wanted to.
All cadaver dogs alert to pig cadaver only in the last stages of decomposition. Madeleine if she had died in 5a wouldn't have been left on the floor until she was in the last stages of decomposition.
Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible is palinly absurd....and you can of course supply no evidence to support it...how could you...its a totally ridiculous claim...
I think there are 2 possibilities here.If “The UK Judiciary means High Court Judges only”, as you say then your statement “The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts” basically means what what Davel said it means,ie “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible” unless I’m missing something? .
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted
The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.
This is the definition of Judiciary
Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.
Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system
The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.
How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.
I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.
If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.
In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.
Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be
Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.
If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.
Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.
The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.
And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
Although we’ve never seen their wings, it’s possible that dogs are just keeping them hidden from us and could fly if they wanted to.Pigs do the same.
I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted
The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.
This is the definition of Judiciary
Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.
Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system
The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.
How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.
I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.
If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.
In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.
Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be
Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.
If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.
Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.
The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.
And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted
The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.
This is the definition of Judiciary
Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.
Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system
The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.
How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.
I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.
If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.
In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.
Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be
Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.
If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.
Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.
The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.
And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.
Some people think that cadaver dog handlers shouldn't be allowed to testify in criminal trials. I think it's up to the prosecution which evidence they use. As with any of the evidence it's up to the defence to refute it or cast doubt upon it.
That's not how the system works... Not jut in the UK but worldwide. Evidence can be ruled inadmissible. It's up to the defence to challenge evidence they consider to be inadmissible but it seems that didn't happen in this case. If evidence is challenged then expert opinion is sought which imo would have ruled the alerts inadmissible... As confirmed by the SCCRC
As we noted in Police and Military Dogs, the work of cadaver dogs is relatively infrequently questioned in court because a cadaver is found and identified by DNA, dental comparison, or other procedures. The work of the dog becomes historical to the case, and does not receive more than a brief mention in a judicial opinion. Nevertheless, this study may have an impact on future prosecutions where a body has not been found and the dog’s alert is taken as proof that the suspected decedent was present at a location, or in cases where the body has been found and the prosecution’s problem is to establish that it was in the defendant’s car or house or at some other specific location (consider the recent Casey Anthony prosecution involving a car trunk). If the defense can make a plausible argument that a dead pig or other animal might have been at the location, and establish that the dog’s training aids included swine remains, a court may have to consider the implications of this research.
Bringing in other experts may or may not lead to the testimony of the dog handler being ruled inadmissible. As you have pointed out, in your opinion it would have, but that's just your opinion, it's not a fact.ICHTT seems to think its simply up to the judge with no expert input....good to see you disagree with him and agree with me. The fact is that both Prof Cassella and prof Angela Gallop say the alerts should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case...is there an expert who supports them...it seems not
ICHTT seems to think its simply up to the judge with no expert input....good to see you disagree with him and agree with me. The fact is that both Prof Cassella and prof Angela Gallop say the alerts should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case...is there an expert who supports them...it seems not
You need to realise that the police are experts too. Experts in the training and handling of cadaver dogs. There was expert input.
The evidence wasn't properly challenged
Surely not to say - a piglet died in 5a
Had its throat cut - and finally ran behind the sofa to die.
The evidence wasn't properly challenged
do you understand what is being discussed here...the evidence admitted in the Gilroy case....i dont believe there were any alerts to cadaver in 5a...no expert has said there was
Looking back - it looks like both.imo
Yes, I understand D - That you have no right to tell me what I can and can't post.
That was up to the defence lawyers.
You posted
This is what I posted
The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.
What evidence do you have on the opinion of the whole of the UK Judiciary on the acceptance of the alerts. Have you contacted each one.. Your claim is absurd.
note the red highlight..
it seems the alerts were not challenged so were automatically admitted...not admitted on merit. Had they been challenged the defence could have called a suitable expert to educate the judge...and according to Prof Cassella.an expert in this area..the alerts should not have been admitted.
pop down to Greggs and get yourself a large portion of Humble Pie
Read the line 3 lines up “ Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be.”
All of the points below this line to the end of the post refer to this line. Maybe its not clear I will edit it so there is no doubt about the meaning.
I went to Greggs, but they were out of humble pie, so I had a sausage roll instead. Very nice!
ICHTT seems to think its simply up to the judge with no expert input....good to see you disagree with him and agree with me. The fact is that both Prof Cassella and prof Angela Gallop say the alerts should not have been admitted in the Gilroy case...is there an expert who supports them...it seems not
The line has no validity because you use the word seem......I understand what the Judicial system is...nothing to do with academic professors....even if they are experts in the field of crime and forensics
In post 41 I replied
"So the judge just decided to just wing it? Without expert advice? Do you know how much a case costs financially? To risk a case collapsing because a High Court judge decided to not take advice on evidence presented is beyond absurd."
That doesn't mean he is obligated to take advice. The responsibility rest on his shoulders alone.
Seem is a valid word, it means
"give the impression of being something or having a particular quality."
From your posts you have given the impression that all the points below the line are your interpretation of the legal process. In this case it is only my opinion not a fact. But the word seem suggests this anyway doesn't it?
youve answered this question yourself last night....this is what you said and I agree..
If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.
the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root
There seems to be some confusion about my post from last night. I have clarified it with the words in brackets.
I think there are 2 possibilities here.
You are trying to obfuscate and divert. 2. You think I am trying to obfuscate and divert.
This is what I posted
The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts.
This is the definition of Judiciary
Wikipedia - The judiciary is the branch of government that interprets the law.
Collins - The judiciary is the branch of authority in a country which is concerned with law and and the legal system
The only alerts that I have ever referenced on this thread are in the 2 cases that were deemed to be admissible evidence. These are the such alerts I mentioned.
How does that lead to you state that I claimed “every High Court judge agrees that alerts are admissible”.
I have never claimed such a thing and would never do. Just to be clear I cannot read people's minds.
If I have to explain my statement further than my post “Yes by the facts the judgement stands”, which you describe as pathetic when it is factual then I will.
In the UK Judicial system there has never been an appeal, ruling or judgement that has declared the alerts in the 2 murder cases inadmissible. The judgements stand as decreed.
Your interpretation of the Judicial system seems to be (all of the points raised below)
Mark Harrison, Martin Grime and Prof. John Cassella have the final judgement on whether dog alerts are inadmissible in a court of Law. Not the presiding High Court Judge.
If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.
Its not certain that a defence counsel would question a witness presented by the prosecution in a very high profile murder case.
The UK Judiciary means High Court judges only.
And I won’t mention your post about the Omagh bombing trial.
the use of the word seem by you means its your opinnion...not fact. As I have said I understand perfectly what the "Judicial" system means....its an adjective relating to judges....with a latin root
From previous quotes you took my reference to the UK Judiciary to mean only High court judges (see post #404).
I have never claimed that "Your claim that every high court judge agrees that the alerts are admissible"
unless you can show where I claimed that. I'll wait.
doesnt really change anything does it...Ive answered the points you've raised.....
you have admitted....If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it.
which supports everything i've posted from day one on this thread...the defence didnt challenge it...so the judge automatically admitted it.
Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.
" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37
And this is my post #64
A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.
You are making another assumption....the Judiciary includes every high court judge....so what you are claiming is inclusive of every high court judge..
you only had to wait less than two minutes...thats typing and thinking time combined
Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.
Yes and also every magistrate, district judge, recorders, circuit judges, Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor among others. As I said High court judges comprise 6% of the judiciary why didn't you choose the other 94%. Ony one minute.
Please read the post again. My understanding is the exact opposite to If a defence doesn’t challenge evidence pre trial a judge will automatically admit it. I was stating what you have said previously on this thread.
" I would think in both Scottish csdes the evidence wasn't challenged... If it was... Based on expert opinion it wouldnt be admissible" Post #37
And this is my post #64
A judge can choose to not admit evidence without any prompting from the defence at at his own discretion.
That's the point I was making... Once again you agree with me
Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.
Where you are wrong is when you say that a challenge by defence lawyers would lead to the evidence being ruled inadmissible. That isn't a foregone conclusion because the challenge could be unsuccessful.
so tell me...does a judge look through every piece of evidence pre trial and decide if its admissible..before allowing it...or does he rely on the defence to raise any questions re the admissibility of evidence
Ultimately a judge is responsible for any evidence presented before a court. He has to decide what is admissible or inadmissible not the defence counsel, prosecution or anybody else. There is no responsibility on the defence counsel to ensure that inadmissible evidence is not presented before court. As the case proceeds the judge at any point before it is presented can rule evidence inadmissible if he feels it may prejudice the trial.
Say, at the pre hearing the judge noticed there was some hearsay testimony that is inadmissible, he wouldn’t say to himself “If the defence don’t raise this I am going to allow it”
Or on day 4 some evidence is going to be presented that would reference something that has already been excluded he would rule that inadmissible also. The onus is on the Judge.
Surely this make sense ?
In actual fact inadmissible evidence was presented at the trial... the full written pathologist report. The Judge told the jury simply to ignore it.
Nothing you have posted can show my claim that had the alerts been challenged ...then they would not have been admitted. This therefore shows tht the fact they were admitted makes them evidence simply your opinion.
Your claim that The whole of the UK judiciary have no issue with the acceptance by High Court judges of such alerts, belongs in the nearest bin.
This is very true, it happens very often in court cases that the judge will ask the jury to disregard some evidence or testimony. After all he can’t foresee what a witness is going to testify later that day or even one of the counsels may say when questioning a witness. Its a very live process a judge has to react to a fluid moving situation.
That said, in either case we are talking about did the judge ask the jury to disregard the dog alert evidence ?
No because it wasn't challenged..
You did previously post that if inadmissible evidence was admitted... The judge would order a retrial... You've obviously abandoned that one now
There was no way the judge could know that the following was going to happen to rule it as inadmissible could he.
He didn't judge it serious enough to desert the trial diet. I haven't abandoned anything if a serious piece of inadmissible evidence arose a judge would order a retrial. If its minor he won't. I didn't think I would have to describe every nuance of court proceedings.
From the High court papers not from a podcast.
"Three unedited copies of the report were given to the jury in error. Although the pathologist gave oral evidence in respect of all four conclusions, his testimony did not cover the italicised sections set out above. The jury noticed the discrepancy in their copies and brought it to the court's attention on the following day. A motion to desert was made, but the trial judge refused that in favour of a direction to the jury to disregard the matters not covered by the pathologist in the witness box"
So it wasn't really challenged at the time by the defence either.
I'm referring to the alerts as not being challenged
Well why do you think that they weren't challenged. Twice. By two different legal teams.Poor defence
What reason?
If they were so inadmissible did the defence counsel not notice that they were being presented before the court in front of their very eyes.
Poor defence
Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.Come on, uncorroborated dog alerts admitted in evidence that weren’t challenged by the defence? I’d say that was pretty poor.
You couldn't make it up.
Stop it my sides are hurting.
Come on, uncorroborated dog alerts admitted in evidence that weren’t challenged by the defence? I’d say that was pretty poor.
In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.
In the Gilroy case only the sentencing was broadcast so I can't say how the dog handler was examined, but in the Margaret Fleming case the trial was. So you can see the defence question the evidence presented by the dog handler. Of course we don't know how hard the defence petitioned for the evidence to be excluded pre trial but as the history tells us the judge ruled it admissible. That's the fact.Davel’s contention is that the defence did not try hard enough or at all to petition for the evidence to be excluded as it should have been. This is opinion now, to which we are all entitled and which you asked Davel to express and laughed so hard your sides ached when he did as you asked. But really it was a valid opinion, so no need for the sarky comment IMO.
Davel’s contention is that the defence did not try hard enough or at all to petition for the evidence to be excluded as it should have been. This is opinion now, to which we are all entitled and which you asked Davel to express and laughed so hard your sides ached when he did as you asked. But really it was a valid opinion, so no need for the sarky comment IMO.
What is clear is that it can no longer be said that cadaver dog alerts aren't evidence because they have been used in court as evidence.
Dare I say that The Fleming Case appeared to be a shambles. Much more relaxed than an English Court of Law. And I have spent some time in English Courts. Although I don't suppose it made much difference in the long run.
I guess all cases are different, it depends on the personalities involved. Maybe the way it was edited and presented on TV could also be a factor. But yes I did like the bit where Cairney told the prosecutor to "away and boil yer head".
I am sorry, please forgive me, but I find it really funny that Davel thinks he knows the intricacies of the legal process better than 2 defence counsels that have both studied law for many years. That he can judge their performance to be poor, based on what experience exactly. I have only be here a few days but it is awash with sarky comments so don't be so precious. IMODon’t tell me what to do, precious.
Yer, that bit made me laugh. But it was the actual Trial, although perhaps not all of it.There’s more??
Can't wait for the next bit.
There’s more??
Isn't there a Part Two?I think I watched both parts in one go.
And that G-Unit is all I have been arguing for, as it has been pushed as inadmissible or irrelevant for many years on this forum.
I think I watched both parts in one go.
Oh. I shall have to watch it again. But it will be worth it for the laugh.Bit off topic but where the house and land the killers lived I see someone according to an article in the Mail yesterday is now planning to build there.I thought the location was stunning.
By the way, I think they done it. Although The Dog Evidence was absolutely useless.
Poor Defence? So now you're an expert defence counsel who knows more about court proceedings than 2 defence counsels in a High Court trial.
You couldn't make it up.
Stop it my sides are hurting.
What is clear is that it can no longer be said that cadaver dog alerts aren't evidence because they have been used in court as evidence.
And that G-Unit is all I have been arguing for, as it has been pushed as inadmissible or irrelevant for many years on this forum.
I think its clear that you havent changed anyones mind here and the only posters who agree with you are those that have always thought the alerts were evidence
Opinions are fine, but they can't compete with facts. The facts are that dog alerts have been used as evidence so anyone saying they're not evidence is denying the truth.
The fact they have been used doesn't make them evidence....
You are mistaken
Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. If dog alerts have been used in that way they're evidence whether you agree or not.So in this case what are the alerts evidence of.. What assertion do they support
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
Evidence is anything presented in support of an assertion. If dog alerts have been used in that way they're evidence whether you agree or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
That would make a lie detector evidence... But not admissable evidence
Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.
Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.
Lie detector tests aren't admissible, but cadaver dog handler's evidence is.
Are you under the false impression that all the UK Judiciary... All the high court judges recognise the alerts as admissable evidence
what i know is that professionals make mistakes. I once sued a solicitor...after 3 years the barrister told me i hadnt got acase...I over rode his decision.....and I was successful. The well trained barrister was wrong.
Every profession has its mistakes...look at doctors. IMO anyone who thinks there are not mistakes in the justice system and they are all perfect is a bit of a fool
Second time as you are unable to answer.. What are alerts evidence of... The experts do not agree with you
Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?. If not what criteria makes them admissible?
The same answer as post #47
The dogs alerts are evidence that the dogs alerted in the garden where a missing person was supposed to have lived.
Nothing more than that.
The criteria is according to experts they have no evidential value. This doesn't seem to have been tested by the courts, as yet... The judge is not in a position to decide himself...if the alerts wdre challenged and they should have been the judge would listen to expert opinion and then decide
That doesn't answer my question maybe it was too complicated, let me break it up.
Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.
Modify message
So they are not evidence of the past presence of a cadaver... Thanks
Nothing you could say would be too complicated for me to understand... The fact you try to imply it does shows your frustration... If you want to debate.. Behave and mind your manners.. I've not made one goading post to you... Try and reciprocate
As mentioned previously a jury would decide their worth.
Only if they were admitted... Doing a little work at the moment... Shouldn't take long
Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.
Were they actually admitted or were they just not challenged?
Well in the two cases we are discussing they were admitted that is a fact.
By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.
The fact that they were, admitted was accepted as fact about two hundred posts ago... The question is...why were they admitted... My contention is they are not admissible but simply weren't challenged. Based on that... Can we see that oart of the debate closed
Was their admissibility challenged... I don't believe it was
Not quite, the declaration of evidence to be inadmissible can only be undertaken by a judge. Even if there was a mistake by the defence ( and I'm not saying there was) no judge has declared them inadmissible. So they legally stand as admissible evidence.I would say you are quite wrong... They are legally admiited
We can leave that part there if you wish, but with respect I would still like an answer to my question that I proposed earlier.
I would say you are quite wrong... They are legally admiited
Evidence in this case... That certainly does not mean that all High court judges now consider alerts as legally admissible
How can you know this?
Deduction
Because if it had been properly challenged it would it would not have been admitted.. From what I understand
Assumption.
On what legal grounds would it be deemed inadmissible.
By the facts presented, they were admitted before court that is a truth as we can see it on film.
They were challenged by the defence counsel during the trial, but its not in the public domain if they were challenged pre trial.
You need to ask Prof Cassella and Prof Angela Gallop for the precise reasons ...According to the SCcRC it was inadmissible... You could ask them too
And of course they have no evidential reliability or value
Thank You.
It sounds as though Davel is right.
OK you keep using this references so back it up.
The General already questioned you if Prof Cassella did say that back in his post #447 so please provide the cite where he says dog alerts are inadmissible in court. And as you persist in using the SCCRC please provide the report that they produced stating this. Not hearsay from family members of the man convicted of the murder but the report.
And while you are at it please with respect answer my previous question, you know the one.
Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.
The question was
Is it your contention that dog alerts are always inadmissible evidence in UK courts in the way a polygraph test, or certain types of hearsay are?.
How so?
Simple question.. They would be if properly challenged
Someone snuck them in while no one was watching.
This is interesting re admissibility..
4. The expert's evidence is reliable
There should be a sufficiently reliable scientific basis for the expert evidence or it must be part of a body of knowledge or experience which is sufficiently organised or recognised to be accepted as a reliable body of knowledge or experience.
The reliability of the opinion evidence will also take into account the methods used in reaching that opinion, such as validated laboratory techniques and technologies, and whether those processes are recognised as providing a sufficient scientific basis upon which the expert's conclusions can be reached. The expert must provide the court with the necessary scientific criteria against which to judge their conclusions.
Grime has told us the dogs are validated anectdotally...the opposite of scientific
I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.
I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.On what grounds could they possibly have come to that conclusion?
I am pretty sure the judge knows this. Two High court judges in two different cases decided the experts evidence was reliable.
Which question.....ive been at work so my full attention hasnt been on posting.
Two journalist spent two years researching the Gilroy case and produced a podcast available on amazon, its quite interesting. The Gilroy family claimed the SCCRC ruled the alerts indmissible.....then in the podcast it again mentioned the SCCRC decision....it also said when Prof Cassella was asked he confirmed the alerts were inadmissible.....thats reasonable evidence...more reliable than the alerts imo.
The podcast you mention is in 10 episodes. I have listened to episode 7, where Cassella speaks. He doesn't use the word inadmissible. Who did use that word, and in which episode?what did you hear Cassella say re the dogs
Taken from epidode 8...the trial prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs
We spoke to Prof John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him
Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't admissible.
So Cassella didn't say admissible or inadmissible?according to the two reporters he said inadmissable. Ive provided quite a bit of evidence there but you can ignore it all if you wish,...doesnt really make any diference
according to the two reporters he said inadmissable. Ive provided quite a bit of evidence there but you can ignore it all if you wish,...doesnt really make any diference
what is noticeable...is that Cassella is saying exactly what Grime and Harrison said in 2007...did you notice that...do you think that is of any significance
I noticed the reporters mentioned the Zapata case where the judge said the alerts were no better than tossing a coin. They didn't, however, mention that the dogs in that case were later found to be correct. Naughty!
If the dogs are taken to potential homicide cites and they alert...its not surpridsing that sometimes the site relates to a murder..Googling Derek Acorah "The TV mystic Derek Acorah has died aged 69, his wife has said.
that does not mean the dogs alert was correct... Derek Acorah probably has a much higher success rate than the dogs
I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.
So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.
I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible
I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.
I’m afraid due to increasing work commitments I will have to step back from the forum for a few weeks, I learned to my cost today that when you plan to log on for 10 mins at lunch you can get sidetracked for a couple of hours. It’s very addictive arguing with someone you have never met over the internet but I just don’t have the spare time at the moment.
So hopefully I can leave it like this for now.
I contend that there have been two cases where dog alerts have been admitted in the UK courts.
Davel contends that had they been challenged they would have been ruled inadmissible
I think that covers it.
Good luck everybody.
Cheers 8((()*/
Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?
Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them. But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.
Cheers 8((()*/
Ok just to pick up on the above for those still here I'm not really sure what point Icanhandlethetruth was endeavoring to make?
Dog alerts are clearly capable of being used in court otherwise the police wouldn't deploy them. But an alert is just a tiny piece of potential evidence that only has value if supported by other pieces of evidence.
I think it's clear what point he was making. According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece. But what would the experts know
According to the experts, who are forensic scientists, there's no forensic evidence, which is true. No-one ever claimed there was. The whole case rested on circumstantial evidence, as the prosecutor acknowledged. The Proculator Fiscal scrutinised the evidence and decided to go ahead with a prosecution, and Gilroy was convicted.
The point is... No evidence of death in the basement
No forensic evidence is the point. There was none in Gilroy's car boot either. The case was brought using only circumstantial evidence, which the jury decided was enough.What evidence us there that Suzanne was murdered in the basement... There's evidence incriminating Gilroy... But no evidence of murder in the basement
I think the cadaver dog alerts prove that Suzanne Pilley was abducted, just like Maddie & Jeanette Zapata.No reported deaths at Haute De Laurenne... But 11 alerts
I hope they all get found safe & well soon. &%54%
No reported deaths at Haute De Laurenne... But 11 alerts
I think the cadaver dog alerts prove that Suzanne Pilley was abducted, just like Maddie & Jeanette Zapata.
I hope they all get found safe & well soon. &%54%
What evidence us there that Suzanne was murdered in the basement... There's evidence incriminating Gilroy... But no evidence of murder in the basementLet's brek it brek it doowwwwnn.
And I hope that you do one in a minute. Unless you can think of something sensible to say.
I forgot Bianca Jones.I’m praying you grow up and start acting like a decent human being.
Let's pray for her safe return too.
&%54%
I forgot Bianca Jones.
Let's pray for her safe return too.
&%54%
I think it's clear what point he was making. According to the experts there is no evidence if death in the basement in the Pillay case... That's, none... Not even a, tiny piece. But what would the experts know
Interesting collaboration between Professor Casella and Mark Harrison in the attached, in regard to soil analysis post discovery of a cadaver.
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ (http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/)
Why would you think it would be extraordinary for analysis of the soil surrounding a grave site where a body had decomposed and remains still in situ for traces of decomposition to be found?I don't.
Interesting collaboration between Professor Casella and Mark Harrison in the attached, in regard to soil analysis post discovery of a cadaver.
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ (http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/)
eddie alerted to soil in the floer bed...why was no sample takenA least you asked a sensible question.
A least you asked a sensible question.
I ask a lot of sensible questionsMaybe the technology was in its infancy, or unknown.
Maybe the technology was in its infancy, or unknown.
excuses imo...cuddle cat wasnt taken eitherIt's not excuses. I think you jumped on the defensive too quickly. I don't know, so I'm throwing something out there.
I don't.
Then what was the point of the link you posted - http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4774/ - hadn't you bothered to read it?Bless you, always thinking superficially. We do need people like you; thinking in simple terms.
It's not excuses. I think you jumped on the defensive too quickly. I don't know, so I'm throwing something out there.
Bearing in mind this paper was only published 2 years ago, suggests further research is ongoing.
But there's a wee something else in there that I know you didn't miss.
ive seen nothing there that alters my opinion in the slightestWhich opinion?
Which opinion?
My opinionWhat about?
Bless you, always thinking superficially. We do need people like you; thinking in simple terms.
Keep up the excellent posts.
Go on, delete the bits you don't like........
This was posted on the ZAMPO thread but probably more relevent posted here. No-one seems to be interested in Zampo no more if they ever were in the first instance. I am still mightily puzzled why it was opened and then ignored, but there you are ...
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed David Gilroy’s case for a miscarriage of justice part of the basis for which was as follows ...
One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.
They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court.
However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp
Any Topic I start descends into Insults and Punch Ups so try not to take it too personally.
Perhaps you should consider a name change then?
Thank you Eleanor, Wise words.
I can take the punch ups and insults but some of the other stuff gets under my skin.
Perhaps you should consider a name change then?
I've posted this before..but to remind those who may have forgotten..This is the same Professor John Cassella who is more than happy for VRD dogs to find the grave that he used for his recent chemical analyses of soil and water for the location of a buried body.
Taken from epidode 8...the trial prof John Cassella is a professor of Forensic science, he is a colleague of Grime at Staffs University and wrote the forward to Grimes white paper on cadaver dogs
We spoke to Prof John Cassella about the cadaver dog evidence and discovered that it shouldnt have been included in the trial..the dogs were there just for information to help the police..and their indications needed backing up with forensics....Cassella speaks live on several occasions so we know for sure they met and spoke to him
Further on the Narrator says....David aplied to appeal his case in 2015 to the SCCRC and argued that the evidence re the dogs should not have been heard...they agreed...they said it wasnt of sufficient standard to be presented to a Jury..it wasn't admissible
It’s all very well using dogs to find grave sites in experiments. If they alert to the wrong place first and take a couple of goes to find the right place then no harm done and noone’s liberty is at stake. However using the bark of a dog with no supporting evidence to condemn a man to life imprisonment is quite another matter and closely akin to throwing witches in rivers to see if they float, a method which also called it correctly on numerous occasions when perfectly innocent women were cleared of the charges as they drowned.Disappointed. I didn't even go there. That's another step and not what was being discussed.
Disappointed. I didn't even go there. That's another step and not what was being discussed.What is being discussed is whether dog barks alone have and /or should be used in evidence. I think my post addresses that point. Also, I think your analogies are odd. Excusing miscarriages of justice based on possible historical miscarriages of justice is not a valid point imo.
Besides, if we extend your point out, for 'the bark of a dog' read 'low copy number DNA' 10 years ago, or 'cellular mast triangulation' 20 years ago, or 'muzzle flash analysis at close quarters' 50 years ago, or 'Harry Jackson's fingerprints' 1902, or matching paper fragments in Edwards Culshaw's skull in 1784. All groundbreaking, all with someone's 'liberty at stake'.
Your 'drowning witches' analogy is odd, given that these same people used to treat syphylis with mercury and clergy practiced necromancy. But I will concede that drowning witches is now generally frowned upon.
What is being discussed is whether dog barks alone have and /or should be used in evidence. I think my post addresses that point. Also, I think your analogies are odd. Excusing miscarriages of justice based on possible historical miscarriages of justice is not a valid point imo.Who's excusing what? I'm pointing out that 'evidence' has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
Who's excusing what? I'm pointing out that 'evidence' has evolved over time and will continue to do so.You introduced the concept of reliability when you kicked off your “thesis” with a discussion about the alleged reliability of the dogs in Cassella’s own experiments. But I do agree, there can be no doubt that in the Gilroy case the dog alerts were entered in evidence, I don’t think that means we are not allowed to question whether or not it should have been though does it?
What is admissible today would have seemed science fiction in the past, or, dare I say it, witchcraft.
And you're generalising again. I'm discussing the Gilroy case independently, exploring the concept of establishment of precedent (albeit criminal as opposed to civil) and Davros' assertion that the evidence should not have been permitted. Just because Cassella, a scientist, states that opinion, doesn't and didn't make any difference.
The concept of reliability is for another day.
This is the same Professor John Cassella who is more than happy for VRD dogs to find the grave that he used for his recent chemical analyses of soil and water for the location of a buried body.
So there's two premise at play here - there's the validity and reliability of the dogs, then there's the 'admissibility' in 'UK only' courts.
If we take each in isolation, using Cassella - he states that he used the dogs to find the subject grave for his paper that some of you read, but few understood - so check the first test off your list - he finds them reliable enough to be able to assist, nay, find his subject grave site. So irrespective of the legal standing, which is not in contention in this point, we have confirmation that, in Professor Cassella's opinion, the dogs are reliable enough and has witnessed their abilities first hand and endorsed them in the paper and credited Mark Harrison.
Now for the sticky bit - Davil does not attack the premise of admissibility, as the dog alert evidence has been permitted at least once before. No, he has brought a new concept in to the discussion; the concept of whether they should have been allowed. I contend that this is rendered moot, as, surely we are in agreement that, if we use the tenets of UK civil law, precedents are presided over by an appointed judge and this is then the standard thereafter until challenged (e.g. Lord Atkins presiding over the 'snail in the bottle' case of 1932 and for the first time defining 'care for thy neighbour')
If we use the example of the Gilroy case and explore further, yesterday's contention that the prosecution in the case were somehow remiss in their including the dog alert evidence. I would contend that the decision was probably ruminated over for some time, given the admittedly contentious nature of the evidence and the fact that they would be breaking new ground. To suggest that the prosecution team, after months of building a case, would jeopardise it with the introduction of superfluous evidence on a whim is in my opinion plainly incorrect.
More likely, and I say that because I wasn't there, but a reasonable man would be right to assume that they realised that they were building a case purely on circumstantial evidence, therefore the weight and volume of that evidence was of importance. Combine that with their failure to get the silver bullet of definitive CCTV footage of Susan Pilley entering her work, they knew that more was more.
As with all evidence, as I discussed yesterday, they have to apply the three tests of relevance; admissibility; and weight. This evidence is presented at pre-trial and disclosed to the other side (rules of disclosure: Disclosure is providing the defence with copies or access to all material that is capable of undermining the prosecution case and/or assisting the defence.) There's no doubt, in my most humble opinion, that both sides looked upon the dog alert evidence in total contrast - the prosecution would have laid out their case for admissibility and presented as such, hoping to add further weight of 'overwhelming' circumstantial evidence to sway the jury. The defence would, in all likelihood, have not contended its admissibility as perhaps they saw it as shaky ground. Bearing in mind the quality and veracity of the defence team is not a factor here.
So, in summary, yes, Cassella likes the dogs and is happy to use their services and has first hand accounts of them being successful.
Yes, dog evidence has been used, successfully (to date).
The concept of whether they should have been used, irrespective of the opinion of great scientific luminaries (not legal), is rendered irrelevant, because they have. If convicted murderer David Gilroy would like to employ the services of Professor Cassella at his next appeal to repeat his assertion that, in this instance, they should not have been admitted, then he should reach out. I would rather suggest that a man who spent a lifetime trying to assist in furthering post mortem science and thereby assisting law enforcement, would baulk at such a suggestion.
Who's excusing what? I'm pointing out that 'evidence' has evolved over time and will continue to do so.
What is admissible today would have seemed science fiction in the past, or, dare I say it, witchcraft.
And you're generalising again. I'm discussing the Gilroy case independently, exploring the concept of establishment of precedent (albeit criminal as opposed to civil) and Davros' assertion that the evidence should not have been permitted. Just because Cassella, a scientist, states that opinion, doesn't and didn't make any difference.
The concept of reliability is for another day.
To suggest others don't understand something uis rather foolish when imo its you who clearly doesn't understand...let me explain.You stated that I don't understand about 6 times there, a record even for you who's mantra is 'you don't understand'.
First..you seem to claim the dogs are reliable....reliable at what....again let me explain.
The dogs ARE reliable at finding cadaver odour...no question about that. That's why cassellla uses them for what tehy are trained for. To detect physically recoverable traces of cadaver..grime concurs that this is what he tarins the dogs to do. So no problem with Cassella using them for what they are trained for.
second...are the alerts reliable...ie ...a reliable indicator of cadaver contaminent...the answer is no...that's why there alerts are deemed inadmissible.
You then go on to claim that because the prosecution presents them...they must be admissible...this shows you clearly don't understand. Im sure there are many many incidents of prosecution presented evidence which is not admitted...not admitted when its challenged ….In the Gilroy case it appears it wasn't challenged and ive supplied evidence that had it been challenged it would have been thrown out..
I think its very clear who understands and who doesnt
What you need to understand is it's not just Cassella questioning their reliability...it's just about everyone who matters...read Grimes statementAnd this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of comment a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Cassella happens to be a professor of forensic science who wrote the introduction to Grimes white paper...to dismiss his opinion is to dismiss the truth
And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of comment a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.
You introduced the concept of reliability when you kicked off your “thesis” with a discussion about the alleged reliability of the dogs in Cassella’s own experiments. But I do agree, there can be no doubt that in the Gilroy case the dog alerts were entered in evidence, I don’t think that means we are not allowed to question whether or not it should have been though does it?You can discuss it, obviously, but you can't state that they're inadmissible, because they have been admitted. It's a fact. Additionally, discussing the merits of whether the prosecution erred in some way is also equally moot. It's irrelevant. The dog alerts comprised part of a body of circumstantial evidence in a successful prosecution of a murderer in the UK. That's it.
What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.Come on Davel, I expected a fight at least, not capitulation directly to ad hom, as is your wont.
And this.........'just about everyone else who matters'. What is that? That's the sort of shit a primary school kid would spout in a temper......'yeh well, everyone hates you, we had a vote!'.
Feel free to provide a list of 'everyone else' by way of a cite, not including Joey Essex or Barry off Eastenders.
Come on Davel, I expected a fight at least, not capitulation directly to ad hom, as is your wont.
Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset
In my opinion your assumption that you are always right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong makes debate pointless.
You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.
If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.
You quote the opinions of those who agree with you, and ignore the opinions of those who don't. In the Gilroy case the opinions which count are those of the police, the COPFS and the trial judge. The first two decided to include the dog alerts in the evidence they used against Gilroy and the judge allowed the evidence to be included.
If you wish to castigate anyone, then Gilroy's defense team are the ones who failed him. Jack Davidson QC was an experienced criminal barrister whose sole argument seems to have been that the jury shouldn't convict Gilroy because the evidence was circumstantial. He was correct, but as the The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission allegedly reported, there was enough there to convict Gilroy without the evidence of the dog alerts.
I'm afraid you are wrong again ...if you correct a fool he will be angry with you but if you correct s wise man he will thank you.
The problem for you and others is I'm right most of the time.. particularly re the dogs
I think it's clear the alerts are not admissible and I've never supported his defence counsel in fact I think they were particularly poor...only a few witnesses called in defence and all over in half a day. Had he been more proficient he would have challenged the alerts and they probably would not have been admitted.
The mistake he made was he thought the circumstantial evidence alone was not enough to convict...I agree with the SCSRC....the alerts should not have been admitted but there was sufficient evidence anyway. Had there not been the verdict could well have been overturned
The problem isn't that you're right most of the time, it's that you think you're right most of the time. I agree with The General; as time goes by dog alerts will feature in more cases because they can add weight to cases where it's obvious what happened but definitive evidence is lacking. Where a dog has a well documented history of reliability there's really no reason why their alerts should be rejected.
Thing is I'm not a schoolkid and I'm not angry....I wouldn't bother trying to convince a Jehovah's witness they were wrong about their faith and that's why I feel debate here is often pointless...it's the same mindset
What a pathetic childish reply....you obviously know little about the dogs and the alerts.
Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to. To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.
So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.
You are misrepresenting the facts again.Again?
So insane, in fact, that this apparent absence of evidence or proof helped to convict David Gilroy. David Gilroy the murderer. Killed a young woman, probably with his bare hands in a fit of rage.
It shouldn't have helped convict anyone according to the experts I've quotedAgain, that's irrelevant. It happened.
Again, that's irrelevant. It happened.
Also again, Casella is a subject matter expert - a scientist. He is in no way placed to make a legal determination. He can proffer an informed opinion, which he has.
Can posters please refrain from calling members by anything other than their proper user names.
I won't post a second warning!!
you are quoting your opinion as fact...it isnt...this ia fact..I didn't say that, please accept my apologies for the confusion my dear Davel.
its the Judge who makes the legal determination...based on the opinion of the subject matter expert....that makes Cassella's opinion far from irrelevant
The disappearance of Suzanne Pilley and the later conviction of David Gilroy is certainly an interesting case which does not as yet have its own board. Until this can be put into place here is some further information.Yes, Davel and I have both listened and , I think I can be permitted to speak for us both, found it most entertaining and informative.
https://www.audible.co.uk/pd/Body-of-Proof-Audiobook/B07WPCMH3C?qid=1567762245&sr=1-1&pf_rd_p=c6e316b8-14da-418d-8f91-b3cad83c5183&pf_rd_r=S162NY60Q5NKMG0MWWBJ&ref=a_search_c3_lProduct_1_1
I didn't say that, please accept my apologies for the confusion my dear Davel.
I was referring to your assertion that it 'shouldn't have helped to convict anyone'. This may be the case - but I contend that, in this case, it's irrelevant. It's happened.
and i say its not irrelevant...because his opinion ...and the opinion of others ...has affected past cases and will affect future casesAnd I contend that his opinion is rendered useless in this instance (not meaningless; the man's preeminent in his field, as I have stated before and his credentials unquestioned), unless he assists in an appeal in this case or a subsequent similar one.
And I contend that his opinion is rendered useless in this instance (not meaningless; the man's preeminent in his field, as I have stated before and his credentials unquestioned), unless he assists in an appeal in this case or a subsequent similar one.
Future cases, indeed. Get Casella in early doors and give it to 'em straight.
Not if there is no evidence or proof of what the dog alerted to. To think otherwise would be some form of insanity.
this is the first instance you have added the caveat of "in this instance" to your claim his opinion is irrelevant....we now agree...I've stated that all along. I've caveated everything with 'in this instance' or 'in this case'.
I've stated that all along. I've caveated everything with 'in this instance' or 'in this case'.Oh dear... Gilroy seems to be as guilty as hell..
We are in agreement regarding the concept; that preeminent authorities should be consulted and, given their acknowledged expertise, their opinion should lend weight to any argument.
But your argument is essentially that, because a brilliant man said some evidence shouldn't have been admissible after the fact, it shouldn't have been admissible, ergo, that one successful conviction shouldn't have been.
Uncorroborated evidence gleamed from cadaver and CSI dogs is admissible in Scottish courts so I see no reason why it shouldn't have been provided by the prosecution at Gilroy`s trial. However, I also believe the jury should have been informed of Gilroy`s predisposition towards domestic violence too.According to the SCCRC the alerts should not have been admitted...what other cases are there where the alerts have been admitted...I haven't seen any
There are snippets about the case on the forum which can be found using a quick search.
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.
Yes, Davel and I have both listened and , I think I can be permitted to speak for us both, found it most entertaining and informative.
I would be most interested in participating in such a board.
That's because the blood dog didn't alert on many so it is elementary why Grime's professional opinion was alerts to cadaver scent from a cadaver dog @)(++(*
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
That's because the blood dog didn't alert on many so it is elementary why Grime's professional opinion was alerts to cadaver scent from a cadaver dog @)(++(*
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I haven't listened to it as yet so it would be helpful if you could list the arguments which claim to lend support to Gilroy.I'd have to review it. I binge listened about 3 months ago.
These can then be used to start a new thread.
I'd have to review it. I binge listened about 3 months ago.
You're right though, the podcast never really mentioned his 'violent past'. He comes across as very convincing. There's hours of phone interviews with him and he's very eloquent and assertive.
The podcast, in my opinion, as per the current trend, attempts to inject some suspense to the narrative for the unwitting listener.
From memory, the main crux of the defence is the lack of 'definitive' CCTV, a 'speeding car' leaving the scene at almost exactly the same time frame, the total lack of forensics in the basement, the dog alerts uncorroborated (despite the car being given the Domestos treatment) and the apparent corroboration in regard to his movements to the school in the afternoon and the reason for him going home to pick something up.
The fella narrator has an annoying voice too.
That doesn't mean Eddie has never given a false alert...you and others have misunderstood it
He made many alerts not one and if you think they are all false then keep living in fantasyland!I think none are to cadaver...just like in Jersey...just like the alert to Cuddle Cat...no real alerts.....
The evidence is that the dog alerted. It's possible to make an informed decision as to what it was alerting to. If the dog has a proven track record it's not unreasonable to decide that it alerted to the scent it was trained to find.You can’t identify an absent cadaver by the bark of a dog. If Shannon Matthews had been sold into white slavery never to be seen again a jury might conclude she’d been murdered in some grotty flat in Dewsbury, and was not out there somewhere in the big wide world waiting to be rescued.
There was a total lack of forensics in the whole basement....having said that the rest of the real evidence was enough to convictThat's what I said.
You can’t identify an absent cadaver by the bark of a dog. If Shannon Matthews had been sold into white slavery never to be seen again a jury might conclude she’d been murdered in some grotty flat in Dewsbury, and was not out there somewhere in the big wide world waiting to be rescued.I reckon the bark of a dog can. Woof!
That's what I said.
you did...and teh conclusion was how could someone be violently mudered in a basement...a body dragged 70 ft...yet not one piece of forensic evidence,. Did you mention there were two cadaver dogs and only one alerted500 gauge visqueen, a roll of gaffer tape and a predilection for violence. The scratches on the back of his hands give away the method, which also explains the lack of DNA.
I reckon the bark of a dog can. Woof!I think you've missed the point.
....and wasn't the dog right in the Shannon Matthews case? The couch had a dead dude on it and was 2nd hand? Not sure about the case, so......
You can’t identify an absent cadaver by the bark of a dog. If Shannon Matthews had been sold into white slavery never to be seen again a jury might conclude she’d been murdered in some grotty flat in Dewsbury, and was not out there somewhere in the big wide world waiting to be rescued.
500 gauge visqueen, a roll of gaffer tape and a predilection for violence. The scratches on the back of his hands give away the method, which also explains the lack of DNA.
With 500 gauge there would be no cadaver odour in the carThat cannot be ascertained.
Every situation is different. In the Suzanne Pilley case the circumstantial evidence is compelling even without the alerts by the cadaver dog in the office cellar and in the boot of David Gilroy's car. The fact that there were over one hundred miles unaccounted for in his trip up to the Scottish Highlands and that his car had three cracked coil springs and moss and soil clinging to its underside is imo pretty damning. Gilroy obviously told a pack of lies to the police investigators and subsequently refused to give evidence on his own behalf, an indicator of guilt in most situations.As the owner of the Miscarriage of Justice Forum who claims to have suffered his own miscarriage of justice I find your last sentence quite odd.
IMO, honest people have nothing to fear by taking the stand.
As the owner of the Miscarriage of Justice Forum who claims to have suffered his own miscarriage of justice I find your last sentence quite odd.Maybe it's a reflective and philosophical....
Maybe it's a reflective and philosophical....what?
what?Maybe he's come to terms with his particular injustice and is reflecting.
Maybe he's come to terms with his particular injustice and is reflecting.Maybe we should just wait and see what John has to say about it rather than guessing.
Maybe we should just wait and see what John has to say about it rather than guessing.Yeh, maybe, and maybe if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle, but she hasn't, so she's not.
Yeh, maybe, and maybe if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle, but she hasn't, so she's not.What a stupid response, imo.
What a stupid response, imo.
How accurate are they,oh they're pretty much on top of it,99% of the time.
https://www.fox23.com/news/cadaver-dogs-help-with-search-human-remains-rogers-county/PVHIKGJRYXOSP3PG2CKPBUL4XA/
I presume you are saying they will identify cadaver ...if it's present. ...to an accuracy of 99%.You should know the answer to this by now.
What happens if it's not present and what other substances will the dog alert to
You should know the answer to this by now.
No one seems to know the answer...they might think they doApparently 'dogs don't lie' ... the problem is they don't communicate in English and neither do we speak Dog.
Apparently 'dogs don't lie' ... the problem is they don't communicate in English and neither do we speak Dog.
I take it you don't have a dog.
My dog communicates in perfect English.
And yes I speak Dog.
&^^&*
I've got a German shepherd...I'm sure he can speak English but he refuses...he insists I speak GermanGerman Shepard = Deutscher Schäferhund in Germany. Did he tell you that?
You know I have a dog ... there have always been dogs in my family ... and I know it is a fallacy that 'dogs don't lie'.
Nope. I don't have enough lifetime left to track which forum members have which kind of pets.
I do have a 4 year old grandson. So I speak to him in 4 year old.
KISS
My doggie is mithering me to say he wants din-dins. Maybe my dog speaks to me more than yours did to you.
I take it you don't have a dog.e
My dog communicates in perfect English.
And yes I speak Dog.
&^^&*
e
You have got to be nuts. My dogs never speak anything at all. But then I never needed them to do so. I have always known anyway.
All of my dogs could have found a dead body if there ever was one.
Obviously my powers of recall are superior to yours as I can clearly remember your reply to my post regarding my little cadaver dog.
I agree, certainly not worth looking for - except I was pleasantly surprised that your reply was couched in reasonable terms and minus what I find are the expected acerbic put downs to my posts; which I found extraordinary and quite refreshing.
I presume you are saying they will identify cadaver ...if it's present. ...to an accuracy of 99%.
What happens if it's not present and what other substances will the dog alert to
I don't know why the keep showing these video's of cadaver dogs alerting to the smell of cadaver, that is what they are trained to alert to unlike Eddie who was trained with pig. Any dog will find a decomposing body, the whole idea of cadaver dogs is that they will alert to the body instead of digging it up and damaging the evidence.I mean, where do you start? Can you provide cites for any of the many assumptions / assertions in this post?
The problem is with Eddie having been trained on pig decomposing flesh, he will only alert when the flesh is in its last stages of decomposition as this is the time when a pig will give off the same gas as a human cadaver.
Eddie wouldn't have been alerting to cadaver scent in 5a as there is no way Madeleine would have been left to decompose to the state that Eddie would alert to.
I don't know why the keep showing these video's of cadaver dogs alerting to the smell of cadaver, that is what they are trained to alert to unlike Eddie who was trained with pig. Any dog will find a decomposing body, the whole idea of cadaver dogs is that they will alert to the body instead of digging it up and damaging the evidence.
The problem is with Eddie having been trained on pig decomposing flesh, he will only alert when the flesh is in its last stages of decomposition as this is the time when a pig will give off the same gas as a human cadaver.
Eddie wouldn't have been alerting to cadaver scent in 5a as there is no way Madeleine would have been left to decompose to the state that Eddie would alert to.
Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.
Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.I have seen it recorded that Eddie alerted to blood in a burnt out vehicle ... do you have a cite for the alert in the bedroom in what from the details given in court was a violent and bloody crime?
utter speculation.....cite for this...i think you are the one who is mistaken
Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.What a good boy. Eddie, not Martin. No, to hell with it, Martin too. Good boys.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Further searches identified a location where the EVRD alerted in the front bedroom of the offender's empty next door dwelling house.
When interviewed the suspect admitted that the body had laid in the room for 1 hour prior to disposal. Forensic teams were unable to extract any forensic evidence despite being shown the exact position.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
There was no mention of this 'alert' in court unlike the alert in the vehicle because there were no forensics to verify it.
Mrs Harron's death was violent and bloody enough to leave physical trace in a burnt out vehicle.
It still happened and the suspect confirmed the body had been there.
Eddie alerted to the scent of Attracta Harron's remains in a bedroom. She was there for one hour after being killed and before being disposed of. She was in the very early stages of decomposition, so you appear to have been misinformed.
I mean, where do you start? Can you provide cites for any of the many assumptions / assertions in this post?
But there was no evidence that Mrs Harron's body had lain there ... therefore that alleged alert was not presented in court.
Interestingly the court was told that Mrs Harron's murderer refused to divulge any crime details during police interviews.
The second witness was Martin Grime of the United Kingdom. He is occasionally contracted by the U.S. government and is a qualified expert in cadaver dogs.
Grime displayed five videos of his search dog “Eddie,” trained to search for human decomposition. The videos, filmed at the LaFayette Police Department during September 2007, displayed the dog’s ability to pick up on alert scents
There is a lot of documented footage showcasing Eddie's skills so no need to worry when this case goes to trial ?{)(**
I have given the cites before.
There are stages of decomposition. Gases are given off in each one of the stages. Each stage smells differently.
So how long had the piglets that Grime trained Eddie with been dead?
As I understand it scientists are unable to identify the substances emitted by dead bodies. If they could they'd be able to reproduce the scents. The scientist you quoted identified only 8, I think. Additionally, the dogs are trained initially on pig cadavers. As they work they learn more about the target scents. Eddie was a very experienced dog.
rose, edwards, harron, collier are 4 for starters.Link for Rose and Collier
Murder 24/7 episodes 4 and 5,this week,blooming blood dogs only went and found blood.
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/medical-detection-dogs-coronavirus-covid19-18118124 (https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/medical-detection-dogs-coronavirus-covid19-18118124)
As i understand dogs can catch covid.....and therefore if infected could pass it on whilst asymptomatic....before dying of covid..on a more serious note..
if you read the article they wont be taking the dogs bark for it.....any positive alert from eddie needs to be confirmed by a medical test
In the McCann case the alerts were backed up by the bodily fluids collected.
In the McCann case the alerts were backed up by the bodily fluids collected.
What Body Fluids?
The ones that were found to be “inconclusive” in relation to a match to MM’s DNA when tested in the UK. Hopefully someone will take Perlin’s offer up now we have a “new suspect”
The ones that were found to be “inconclusive” in relation to a match to MM’s DNA when tested in the UK. Hopefully someone will take Perlin’s offer up now we have a “new suspect”
Took the words right out my fingers - you would have thought it would have been took up.
A surly if not done - they would have to do it now, with a suspect.
There were No Body Fluids found.
But they had DNA
What DNA? Could we have a Cite please?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why - ...
Well lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match.
Granted I should have used the term human cellular material rather than bodily fluids (but that's another debate). I seriously can't believe any posters here are oblivious to the DNA evidence tested by the UK Forensic Science Service. This is from an email before the full report:
This inconclusive analysis is exactly why the evidence should be tested by Perlin who has already helped the UK Police and claims he may be able to reach a more conclusive analysis with better scientific methods / equipment.
In order to carry out the determined by the 4.a Brigada of Departamento of Investiga?o Criminal of Policia Judici?ia, concerning the process number 201/07.OGALGS, between 15:00h of 4th August, 2007, and 06:30h of 5th August, 2007, were recovered the following evidences in the living room of the apartment 5A, Ocean Club Villas, Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal, where it is possible may have occurred a crime of homicide, by the Crime Scene Investigators Fernando Jos?da Silva Viegas and Bruno Jorge Possid?io Mendes Antunes:-
I A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;
1 B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water;
2A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;
2B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water:
3A - Stain on the floor recovered with a Dry swab;
3B - Stain on the floor recovered with swab with distilled water;
4A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
4B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
5A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
5B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
6A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
6B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
7A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
7B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
8A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
8B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
9A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
9B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
10A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
10B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
Page 2207 :
11IA - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
11 B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
12A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
12B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
13A - Stain on the wall recovered with a Dry swab;
13B - Stain on the wall recovered with swab with distilled water;
14A - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with a Dry swab;
14B - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water;
15A - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with a Dry swab;
15B - Stain on the back of the sofa recovered with swab with distilled water;
16 - Blue curtain;
16B - White curtain behind blue curtain and armband.
All these evidences were delivered to the Forensic Science Laboratory - Birmingham Laboratory, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham, B56QQ, on the 7th August, 2007.-
Birmingham, 7th August, 2007
Who delivers - Illegible, (to me), handwritten Signature.
Who received - S NIBLETTS, FSS Birmingham ( plus handwritten Signature)
Dated 07 August 2007
Thanks for this. That’s helpful even in an ‘elimination’ way - so no evidential dna found then.
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. Dr Perlin has offered to analyse these samples and believes he may well be able to obtain some conclusive information. This offer must be taken up imo.
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. Dr Perlin has offered to analyse these samples and believes he may well be able to obtain some conclusive information. This offer must be taken up imo.
There were No Body Fluids found.
Please give a list of "human cellular material" excluding the Renault key fob, exactly where it was found and which dog alerted. Thank you
What’s in the public domain is available in the PJ files that were released.Could you tell us when he has already helped the Uk police....i think youve made that up
What’s in the public domain is available in the PJ files that were released.
Could you tell us when he has already helped the Uk police....i think youve made that up
When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.
The lawyer for the defence says he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn't know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.
You are making the claim ... it is up to you to say where you came by it when requested. Thank you
I fixed my post I added "reportedly". That's not the key issue though is it. The blood and cadaver dogs alerted at locations in 5A and human cellular material was taken (some from "stains"). UK analysis was inconclusive as to whether some of the samples may have originated from Madeleine McCann.
What did Gerry say about the possibility that Madeleine was injured in the apartment?
Some time after his solicitor wanted a question about blood asking again (Gerry by then apparently did have a comment)...
Both quotes from Processos Vol X
Page 2577
Policia Judiciaria
So where was it reported.. I reckon you've made that up as well
Believe what you like Dave. I could waste 20 minutes finding the report but it's not the issue is it.
Human cellular material was found in areas where the dogs alerted. DNA testing was inconclusive. Going back to the thread title ~Dog Alerts - are they evidence?". The answer is no. The evidence is the human material collected from the places the dogs alerted.
There is no report... You've made it up.
I see Perlin trying to promote his own business making claims that quite possibly have no basis. I m happy to leave it to SY to decide what they need....
The Queen V Shivers & Duffy was one UK case that he worked on... but that's not the point is it, Dave?
Interesting... Perlins dna evidence was admitted but both suspects aquitted
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/FORENSIC_INDEX.htm
4 MADELINE PHOTOS EXPERT EXAMINATION
59-DA-27
5A FORENSICS 04-05-07
5A PHOTOS TAKEN BY JOAO BARREIRAS
5A SAMPLES INDICATED BY EDDIE & KEELA
ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST 11 VOLUMES
BLOOD SPOT TRACES
CASA LILIANA
CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO RENTAL CARS AND BLUE MINI
DEPOSITION MADELEINE'S HAIR A L PALMER
DOG INSPECTION PHOTOS
DOGS INSPECTION SITES
EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
FINGERPRINTS PHOTOS
FRANCES KENNAH HEAD UK CENTRAL AUTHORITY
FORENSIC CLOTHING PHOTOS
GERRY MCCANN'S ARGUIDO STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007
GERRY MCCANN RENTED LAP TOP 13 SEP 07
G.N.R HAIR SAMPLES
INTERCALARY REPORT BY INSPECTOR JOAO CARLOS 31-01-2008
INSPECTOR RICARDO PAIVA
INVOICES RELATING TO DNA ANALYSIS
JOSE CARLOS LEAL PIMENTAL G.N.R
JUDICIAL SECRECY VARIOUS LETTERS
KATE MCCANN'S STATEMENT 07 SEP 2007
LETTERS FROM LAWYERS ACTING FOR UK POLICE
LEGAL SUMMARY PRIOR & LOWE ARCHIVING
PORTUGUESE FORENSIC INSTITUTE TESTS
P.J.FINAL REPORT
P.J.SERVICE INFORMATION 13 SEP 2007
JOHN ROBERT LOWE F.S.S REPORT
MADELEINE'S DNA
MARK HARRISON ASSESSMENT OF GNR SEARCHES AND KRUGEL
MARTIN GRIME EDDIE & KEELA REPORT
MARTIN GRIME PERSONAL PROFILE
MARTIN GRIME ROGATORY LETTERS
TAVARES DE ALMEIDA CHIEF INSPECTOR
OTHER DISAPPEARANCES INVESTIGATED FOR POSSIBLE LINKS
RESPONSES ROGATORY LETTERS OF REQUEST
VIDEO TAPES & MEMORY CARDS FORENSIC SOFTWARE
QUINTA SALSALITO SEARCHES BURGAU
You were asked to substantiate your claim ...
Snip
Quite the opposite. Where the blood and cadaver dogs alerted human cellular material was collected. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg597566#msg597566
In my opinion the above singularly fails on all points and is actually quite insulting to the forum which has an ethos of using only accurate information. The fact you cannot or will not back up your statement calls the accuracy of your post into question.
Have you read those links? Apartment 5A is an example of "where the dogs alerted and human cellular material (some from "stains") was collected." I don't think this is a up for debate. The debate centres on the analysis of the DNA from the evidence collected.
In my opinion you obviously do not have a clue exactly what you are posting about and you prove that with your inability to back up your assertions with an appropriate cite.
I asked you to "Please give a list of "human cellular material" excluding the Renault key fob, exactly where it was found and which dog alerted. Thank you"http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg597582#msg597582 which you have singularly failed to do.
You are correct when you say this is not up for debate since until you are able to explain exactly what it is you propose DNA analysis should be carried out on ... there is no debate possible.
I said human cellular samples were collected in areas where the dogs alerted (5A being one example where both dogs alerted). The exact details of the alerts and where samples were taken are in the files released by the PJ and I posted the links.
As you have indicated ... no point in 'debating' and I have agreed there is no point in a debate based on information you are unable to substantiate for the simple reason it is inaccurate.
Both dogs marked "an area behind the sofa in the sitting room near the window overlooking the road". (Provided for you in the links earlier - specifically from the PJ Report dated July 31st 2007).
Human cellular samples springs into memory ... care to nip into the forensic report and detail what was found there.
Both dogs alerting in the same place is significant to the police regardless of what naysayers think!
Significant to which police?Pathfinder hasn’t realised it’s not 2007 anymore.
Significant to which police?
Significant to any police in an unsolved case.German police don’t seem too interested.
Why don’t you? I stated that the PJ files confirm that human cellular material was collected from an area where both a blood and cadaver dog alerted. Why is that so hard to accept? It doesn’t implicate any particular suspect. Evidence found there could lend weight to the possibility that a corpse had been present in apartment 5A. If the human cellular material was blood it could have come from one of MM’s nosebleeds that GM reportedly couldn’t remember if she had or not. The British Lab was unable to say if it was blood or other human cellular material nor was DNA analysis conclusive . All the more reason for further testing imo. It might turn up a vital link to the German sex offender.
Significant to any police in an unsolved case.
Operation Grange is shameful for not considering the alerts and pushing for a new analysis of the human cellular material found where the dogs alerted.What was stopping the Portuguese investigation doing that?
What was stopping the Portuguese investigation doing that?As we were onetime constantly told ... 'this is a Portuguese investigation. The PJ have primacy.' Interesting times with the advent of the Germans.
Operation Grange is shameful for not considering the alerts and pushing for a new analysis of the human cellular material found where the dogs alerted.
SY understand the value of the alerts...zero
I have read the files. Apparently you have not or you would be capable of providing a cite to back up your claims re "cellular material". I await with little interest to see on exactly what you are basing your assertions.
Time to let the dog alerts lie. They are no longer relevant (and haven’t been for years).
That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).
That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).
Just suppose that perpetrator admitted to killing Madeleine in 5A, would it then be accepted that the alerts were correct?
How could they be? There wasn't time. Unless you are suggesting that Kate McCann came back at 10pm and found her daughter murdered and then disposed of the body.
And of course Gerry and Matt didn't even notice this dead body lying around.
That would be the conundrum wouldn't it ?
I suppose it would all depend upon the details in any confession.
Bruckner isn't going to confess. Unless perhaps to say that he sold a live Madeleine.
That’s nonsense. They are suggestive that a dead body has been present in apartment 5A. Any missing persons enquiry should investigate the suggestive alerts. Perhaps a German sex offender can be linked too? There’s DNA from “more than one person” in the human cellular material that was examined from swab 3a (taken from under the tiles near the sofa where both blood and cadaver dogs alerted).
I'm sure you are right,
although I said perpetrator, rather than CB
Okay. Then No One is going to confess.
How could they be? There wasn't time. Unless you are suggesting that Kate McCann came back at 10pm and found her daughter murdered and then disposed of the body.
And of course Gerry and Matt didn't even notice this dead body lying around.
Juvenile remains do compose quicker than adult remains.
'Spicka et al. [25] found that carcass mass below 20 kg decomposed more rapidly than those above 20 kg and released a lower concentration of ninhydrin-reactive nitrogen over time into the grave soil than larger mass carcasses suggesting that mass does play an influential role in decomposition rates.''
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374967/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6374967/)
Nothing to do with Madeleine McCann.
Grime didn't say they were suggestive of a dead body having been in 5a
How long then, would you say?
Go back and watch the video.
He rightly points out that it suggests that the area might yield forensic evidence - which it did. It’s the analysis of that evidence that is “inconclusive”. To quote the report: “ The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.”
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
They can be corroborated by other evidence Davel which is something also said by Martin Grime . Witness Testimony is evidence. Doesn't have to be forensics.
Edit sorry to jump in, I see you weren't replying to me!
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
Not according to Grime in his statements at PDL... He does seem to have changed his tune recently which makes him an inconsistent witness.
Yes but you need to watch what he says about Eddie’s alert in the Police videos.
He is always consistent with regards to the need for corroborative evidences. That’s why they use the two dogs together and try to locate blood for DNA analysis from the white blood cells. If Eddie’s alerts are not to cadaverine then you must concede it is likely that he’s alerting to blood. There’s too many alerts and only in relation to one specific family to dismiss the need for further DNA analysis of the evidence collected, IMO. As the sample from swab 3a contains DNA from more than one person this could be vital to establishing a link to the German sex offender, perhaps.
Have you got a link to his recent comments?
The most likely place they might find dna of the offender would be on the bedsheets... But they were sent to the laundry and not kept.. I think the alerts are a total red herring... As were the 11 alerts in Jersey
None of the dogs alerted in that bedroom and the bed was tidy. We know where they alerted and that is what to re-test.
Yes and it could be behind that sofa if he entered and met Maddy out of bed as some reports claimed.
Just suppose that perpetrator admitted to killing Madeleine in 5A, would it then be accepted that the alerts were correct?Not unless it can be proved that a child’s body emits cadaver odour almost straight away, no.
Time to bring in Dr Perlin. No stone unturned.
I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.And what might that be? Are you another one still convinced the parents hid the body?
Not unless it can be proved that a child’s body emits cadaver odour almost straight away, no.But has been suggested above, he might stay with the body and carry out activities that are not allowed to be mentioned here.
I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.
And what might that be? Are you another one still convinced the parents hid the body?
Couple of questions on that,are the samples still being held,if so where?
But has been suggested above, he might stay with the body and carry out activities that are not allowed to be mentioned here.Wow, he really was a risk taker then. Remember the Tapas staff statements that the parents were coming and going all evening - where do you suppose they were really going, if not to do checks on their kids?
Not sure . FSS was privatised so may have been mislaid or lost with time.
Clearly there's no forensics to link the German,
Not sure . FSS was privatised so may have been mislaid or lost with time.
The PJ files mention which samples are destroyed and which must be retained and for how many years.
You need to read what Grime says in his statement..
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. The dog
alert indications MUST be corroborated if to establish their findings as
evidence.
Therefore in this particular case, as no human remains were located, the only
alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog
indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
Finally found what Martin Grime said in relation to the alerts behind the
“It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence“.
I fancy Dr Perlin's services will not be called for fear of what might be revealed.
Finally found what Martin Grime said in relation to the alerts behind the
“It is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'a cadaver scent'
contaminant. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence“.
Yes I know... So in this statement he days it's possible... Not probable. Elsewhere he talks of physically recoverable forensic evidence. It isn't just Grime... Harrison and Grimes academic superior Professor Cassella say the same thing
Yes this is the point. It’s “possible”. That’s why analysts of the evidence collected is absolutely crucial.i would rather leave it to SY...the German and portuguese police...none seem to agree with you
Not according to Grime in his statements at PDL... He does seem to have changed his tune recently which makes him an inconsistent witness.
IMO he has never changed his tune. I would say you are misunderstanding his words. You quote the 2008 report where he says the alerts need to be 'corroborated'. It does not specify that corroboration needs to be forensic. So he is not unreliable.
If there is no testimony in the investigation supporting the alerts it's not really anything to do with Grime. He can't assess something that doesn't exist. His later White paper states;
'The use of this type of detection canine always require interpretation of results as to the weight of case intelligence and corroboration via scientific means or anecdotal witness evidence.'
'They are not considered quantitative, and responses require corroboration, either instrumentally, visually, or by anecdotal witness testimony.'
The 2008 report concluded the alerts couldn't be corroborated at that time. It doesn't mean they can never be either as Grime says by instrumentally or witness testimony. If for instance a witness came forward who had seen a death in 5a.
Note Grime said cadaver scent contaminant...not a cadaver. sceptics almost all read this as cadaver...they are wrong
If Martin Grime and his dogs are the pinnacle of excellence I trust they will soon be seen running round properties belonging to Christian Bruckner.Let's hope so.
If Martin Grime and his dogs are the pinnacle of excellence I trust they will soon be seen running round properties belonging to Christian Bruckner.
Bet he's keeping his head down.
He has no need to and I’m sure dogs will be used in any search of land associated with the possibility that the body of Madeleine McCann has been concealed.
We've been through this before.. In 2007 Grime, said the alert needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence...
Sorry don't agree but you know that. IMO He's talking about what's happening in that particular investigation at that time with the evidence they have, ie. they 'may become corroborated' by the forensics
he is not excluding them ever being corroborated by other means.
We've been through this before.. In 2007 Grime, said the alert needed to be corroborated by forensic evidence...
Yes it needed to be corroborated - so he did find something, not nothing as you like to make out.
Sorry don't agree but you know that. IMO He's talking about what's happening in that particular investigation at that time with the evidence they have, ie. they 'may become corroborated' by the forensics
he is not excluding them ever being corroborated by other means.
From Mark Harrisons report...
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
thats physical evidence in case you missed it.
So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.
So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.
So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.
So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.
So obviously imo that meant Maddie's body - not just anybody.
So they must have had something they thought was connected to Maddie but - needed further proof.
I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved. One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.
As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.
The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.
Problem is that there might not be a body any more.
I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved. One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.
As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.
The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.
They haven't released details on their final lead so you don't know who they are investigating. Police usual practice is to not make it known until they have sufficient evidence to charge and successfully convict!The MET have always been at pains to state they will not give a running commentary,nothing's changed imo,this German is a potential important witness imo.
I agree, finding her remains would have established the cause of her demise and very probably provided pointers as to who was involved. One must remember that at that time the parents were suspected of being involved in her disappearance given the evidence.@)(++(*
As it stands presently, the Portuguese courts have stated that Kate and Gerry have NOT been cleared.
The Germans will have to bring in those special CSI dogs again once the digs begin.
From Mark Harrisons report...
After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the cabinet of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs lead by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence.
.
thats physical evidence in case you missed it.
Yes Harrison seems to think it has to be physical, Grime is not recorded as saying that, ever.
Grime uses the the word 'corroborate' or phrase 'corroborating evidence' 6 times in his report and never once attaches the word physical.
Yes Harrison seems to think it has to be physical, Grime is not recorded as saying that, ever.
Grime uses the the word 'corroborate' or phrase 'corroborating evidence' 6 times in his report and never once attaches the word physical.
try this one from Grime..
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof.
Forensic evidence was collected. Here's how Lowe reported on it:"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."This is what I'd imagine Perlin wants to get his hands on if it's still in existence.
Forensic evidence was collected. Here's how Lowe reported on it:"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid."
Problem is Madeleine would have components that matched her mother and father, also they could match a strangers.
However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeleine McCanndid they match her siblings too
That is the name and she is the victim!
Problem is Madeleine would have components that matched her mother and father, also they could match a strangers.
did they match her siblings too
Let's put that question to Dr Perlin.We don't need to.. The FSS would know
We don't need to.. The FSS would know
Science moves on dear friend - techniques and analysis can become far more sophisticated. Forensic science has made huge advances.
Science moves on dear friend - techniques and analysis can become far more sophisticated. Forensic science has made huge advances.
If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test
If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test
What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?
What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?
What would you expect to be left behind in seconds?Funny, it’s the exact same argument for an abductor entering/leaving via the window.
If the pj had kept the bedsheets instead of sending them to the laundry there may be something useful to test
Swab 3a may be useful to re-test,
Yes I agree... which is why it's time to see if Dr Perlin can help with this.
In what way can he help? Do you think he will be able to say if the components are definitely Madeleine's?
(&^&
He claims he may be able to do that. Then GM can be pressed on whether he does remember a nosebleed or not.
And furthermore it would strengthen the suspicion that she died in the apartment since both dogs alerted.
What Eddie alerted to wasn't determined.
It was suggestive of cadaver odour.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
What Eddie alerted to wasn't determined.
He alerts to cadaver odour or human blood. In some areas where he alerted human cellular material was found ("stains" are referred to - though the FSS say they couldn't say from which body fluid the sample(s) came from. Where Eddie alerted and there was no blood then (according to forensic science journal research) we can be 90 - 95% sure the alert is to cadaver odour.
That isnt true you are under a misaprehension. First Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras eddie alerts to blood that has not dried in situ....see Grimes witness statemnet..... so eddie alerts to blood that keela may not alert too. Secondly we simply don't know how accurate the alerts are. The dogs have never been properly tested in the field. Do you really beleive the debacle that was the alert to cuddle cat is reliable.
I believe in the forensic science journal research into the accuracy of such dogs. If they "yap all over the place" as someone suggested the alerts wouldn't be confined to items only belonging to one family in this case.
perhasp you can link us to the science journal that sstates this. there is avery simple raeson the dogs only alerted to things McCann and that is the dog handler. Eddie trotted straight past the renault a she did the other cars...but he was called back . He wasnt called back to the other cars. he showed no interest again in the renault but wa scalled back again ...when he alerted.
If you read the files the PJ found it strange a similar thing happenned in the apartment. Eddie alerting to places he initially showed no interest in. In the other apartments when eddie showed no interest he was sent to the next apartment, not told to have another go.
I don't share your opinion. I've watched all the searches. I believe Martin Grime acted professionally. I have already shared the forensic science research journals with you before.
i'm not staing opinion i'm staing fact..car ...eddie called back twice....apartmnet ...according to Pj ...similar actions.
ther have never been any tests to see how the dogs alert in the field. There was one study..on explosives as i recall ...where dog handlers were asked to locate two areas in a hose wher eexplosives had been. several dogs alerted. in fact there were never any explosives in the house . the handlers cued the dogs.
That wasn't the journal research I shared with you.
I've seen the videos and I believe MG acted professionally. If you seriously believe he was attempting to pervert the course of justice I suggest you make a complaint to the appropriate authorities.
That isnt true you are under a misaprehension. First Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras eddie alerts to blood that has not dried in situ....see Grimes witness statemnet..... so eddie alerts to blood that keela may not alert too. Secondly we simply don't know how accurate the alerts are. The dogs have never been properly tested in the field. Do you really beleive the debacle that was the alert to cuddle cat is reliable.
What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.I'm qoting from Grimes statement... If you don't understand it that's your problem. Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ.. So an alert by only Eddie could still be blood
A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
I'm qoting from Grimes statement... If you don't understand it that's your problem. Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ.. So an alert by only Eddie could still be blood
I'm qoting from Grimes statement... If you don't understand it that's your problem. Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ.. So an alert by only Eddie could still be blood
Eddie finds the source of scent and that includes blood. All blood is dried in situ months later when they come to investigate a suspected murder crime scene. Keela only alerts to blood so that is why she is used after Eddie to confirm if there is blood. No Keela alert they rule out blood as being the scent. The other scent Eddie alerts to is cadaver.
All blood is not dried in situ.
What do you mean? That some stays fluid rather than coagulating??? Or that it dries somewhere then moves to a different site? Or that it could be suspended in another fluid???
Its not what I mean..its what Grime means..its in the files with the statements he gave to the PJ. As ive said if you are going to continually bang on about the alerts you could at least read and undersatnd what Grime says...as you are having to ask me...its clear you havent
And what does Grime mean when he says "all blood is not dried in situ"?as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.
as ive said..are you not aware of what Grime says... i suggest you read his reports. Basically blood taht is diluted with water for instance....leaving nothing to recover forensically ...a little like remnant scent . Keela may well not alert to this.. but eddie may. Not my words...Grimes.
I have read and re-read what he said. If blood is "diluted" with rain (or as Grime says . chemical cleaning materials) Grime doesn't say Eddie would alert to "diluted" blood but Keela would not. Unless I'm not reading the same statement you are:
......"How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.
'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary.".....
Blood cells are either there or not. The remnant scent in question is cadaver odour (which isn't the same chemically as blood (from a living person) diluted by rain or chemical cleaning.
Have you not read all the information re the dogs Grime contributed to the files..grime says exactly what ive said
No it isnt...not according Grime
It would be easier if you just linked the bit of his report(s) you are referring to. Or quote his exact words so I can find it myself.
im just pointing out there are gaps in your knowledge and that of pathfinder...from his profile supplied to the PJ...
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any
'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.
Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source
prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.
It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide
intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime
Yes I accept all that. So are you suggesting that all Eddie's alerts were to blood cells? It's possible certainly.
Thanks so much for posting the relevant section, btw.
what im suggesting is we dont know....thats just one more uncertainty into the mix
(https://i.ibb.co/2vXHPnB/1592152070850.jpg)
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
What contradiction?
So Grime is contradicting himself... Not a good sign
What contradiction?Eddie reacts to blood that has not dried in situ.. Keela, doesn't. So an alert from Eddie and none from Keela could be blood or cadaver odour... Or of course neither
What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.
A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
What are you on about? Both dogs alert to blood.
A search by the EVRD of the house resulted in small blood stains being alert indicated and forensically confirmed as her blood.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Cite?
ive already given it once....did you not understand it. from grimes profile to the PJ...have you not raed it..Wow, that is a good cite D. Dried blood picked up by Dog 1 (CSI) or if it doesn't dry and soaks in picked up by Dog 2 (EVRD).
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any
'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.
Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source
prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.
It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide
intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime
Cite?
I don’t think cites are needed anymore...it seems the forum is now an evidence-free zone.
as i had already provided the cite the post is certainly is a zone fee of something...but not evidence in my case
Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.
as i had already provided the cite the post is certainly is a zone free of something...but not evidence in my case
Both dogs alert to blood. If Eddie alerts and Keela doesn't it is not for blood. Simple not complicated!Still incorrect IMO.
Why? They both were trained to alert to human blood. They both recognise that scent!
Eddie' The Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog (E.V.R.D.) will search for and
locate human remains and body fluids including blood in any environment or
terrain. The initial training of the dog was conducted using human blood
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Because...for the tenth time...cite provided three times....Keela only alerts to blood dried in situ wheras Eddie will alert to blood not dried in situ...so Eddie will alert to blood that keela may have missed
Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.
The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...
Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.
Hmmm. That's not quite my understanding, Davel. According to Grime, both dogs would react to dried blood (he even said that no such dogs would react to fresh - presumably meaning still wet - blood. However, he made a point of stating that Keela would only react to its physical presence, whereas he said no such thing about Eddie.
The nuance being, IMO, that Eddie could have reacted to a lingering scent of blood on any kind of - ideally - permeable object (innocent or not), whereas Keela wouldn't have done. A plaster left on a sock stuffed in the cupboard, a nicked finger in the boot...
Plus, the tenants prior to the dog searches had only left the week before, yet I've never found any witness statement from any of those who'd occupied the flat post-disappearance.
What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...You should have made it clear that In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any
This is what Grime said..
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any
'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.
Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source
prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.
It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime
What i'm saying is absolutely true...it's what Grime said in his profile to the PJ...i've quoted it here at least twice in the last two days. It actually destroys the myth about using the dogs in tandem to confirm cadaver odour...
This is what Grime said..
In order for the dog to locate the source the blood must have 'dried' in situ. Any
'wetting' once dried will not affect the dog's abilities.
Blood that is subjected to dilution by precipitation or other substantial water source
prior to drying will soak into the ground or other absorbent material. This may dilute
the scent to an unacceptable leve1 for accurate location.
It is possible however that the EVRD will locate the scent source as it would for 'dead body' scent. Forensic testing may not produce evidence but any alert may provide intelligence to support other factors in the investigation of a crime
Ÿes, I know. But that passage refers to Keela, except for the last sentence.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
He said this about Keela:
She will only indicate to me when she has found human blood, only human blood and it is only blood and there must be something there *physically* for her to be able to alert to me that's she has actually found something.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
He didn't say the same about Eddie who could apparently sniff residual scent - hence my oft-asked question as to whether any of the previous occupants could have left something with a bit of blood on it, which could have been thrown away by a cleaning lady prior to the dogs' arrival.
As they don't appear to have been questioned, I guess we'll never know.
Are you suggesting Eddie would not react to dried blood...exactly as Keela would.. I'm sure you are quite wrong
No, not at all.
I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.
Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.
If you read my cite as to what Grime said... It's possible that a n alert from Eddie but no alert from Keela could still be blood. That is what is surprising...
Identify the EXACT location of blood so small in size that when forensically recovered will NOT provide a full DNA strand despite low copy DNA analysis.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VOLUME_IXprocesso_2266.jpg)
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Not very helpful in terms of locating verifiable evidence, though, is it?
No, not at all.
I presume that he would indeed react to dried blood, if any was physically there. My point is that Grime stressed that Keela would only react to a physical presence of it, whereas he didn't say the same about Eddie.
Anyway, the bottom line is still that the dog alerts were intelligence assets to assist in finding evidence... but in this case there wasn't any.
Of course there was evidence. Manner samples from "stains" were collected. Swab 3a contained DNA from three people and all the DNA markers for MM were present. However the FSS were unable or unwilling to try to separate out the three contributors thus 19 out of 37 markers is "inconclusive" - between them the three contributors could also have possibly had all of the 19 markers unique to MM.
What surprised me at the time was why K and G immediately attempted to rubbish the dogs rather than accepting that somehow someone may have been injured in the apartment.
Dr Perlin claims he has the technology to better analyse swab 3a and separate out the individual contributors.
Oh no, not Perlin again.
And I think you're confusing the flat and the car.
You need to check your facts Billy. Your numbers are misleading IMO.
I don’t think so. Swab 3a is from the flat and had 19 DNA markers in common with MM... As far as I can remember one swab from the boot of the car had 15 DNA markers in common with MM.
You need to check your facts Billy. Your numbers are misleading IMO.
Yeah sorry...
Swab 3a from under the tile: "An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
And swab from boot of Renault: A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.
Why - ...
Well lets look at the question that is being asked
"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "
It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.
What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. it's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.
Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is it a chance match"
I'm not sure why 37 markers means there must ne at least three contributors - rather than at least two... but that's an aside. I was attempting to dispel the forum myth that "no evidence was collected". The fact is that evidence was collected and tested. The results inconclusive.... but many years down the line and we have an offer from Dr Perlin who appears to believe he can make a conclusive analysis and separate out the individual contributors.
I don’t think so. Swab 3a is from the flat and had 19 DNA markers in common with MM... As far as I can remember one swab from the boot of the car had 15 DNA markers in common with MM.
Billy there can only be a max of 2 alleles per loci, so if on testing there were 4 alleles identified that could be four or three individuals or two persons if they found two from each of them. You can only be sure if there are 20 alleles from the 10 sites (2 per each) and that would be 1 person identified.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Re the car, one trace did have 15 alleles, but in a mixed sample of 37 from 3-5 contributors, in a vehicle rented several weeks after she'd disappeared.
Indeed - the evidence that was collected was found to be "inconclusive" in terms of identifying for sure the DNA of MM. Science moves forward though and we do now have claims that a conclusive analysis is attainable.
yes it seems the portuguese police dont want to release any samples they hold
Are there any still held in the UK?
yes it seems the portuguese police dont want to release any samples they hold
The fss tested them did they not,is the FSS being called into question ?
The fss tested them did they not,is the FSS being called into question ?
"When the dog indicates in the field, it will either be, human decomposition or human blood.
Human decomposition is very persistent, very pungent, to the point where we've been able to locate, in blind searches, graves 40 years after the body has been removed and the body was only there for a short period of time.
With blood, crime investigators have been to the house and somebody has cleaned the blood up to the point where nobody can see it, that doesn't mean there isn't any there to find. With floorboards, some blood might drip through the gap and run around the back of the floorboard which won't be able to be seen but it will still be there. But odour will still be coming through the gap in the floorboards and the dog will be pick it up and be able to respond to it.
The FBI invited me over to America and we assisted with the development of their canine program and they were quite sceptical about the blood dog at the time. And they got 12 identical pieces of cloth and they put a tiny spot of blood in the centre of one of the cloths. They washed it 3 times I think and they put them in a line out for me when I got there and said, tell us which one it is? Keela went up the line and not only identified the right cloth but the exact spot."
Martin Grime
Yes it's a video
https://twitter.com/Babs108164110/status/1273617664213204993
from what ive read..if Im not banned from posting for being a dick head....its the portuguese who hold the samples wanted by the Germans and SY
He is saying it - it's a transcript of the video you plonker!
you may have taken this out of context otherwise its BS if grime is claiming the dogs are 100% accurtate...do you have alink to the full article
Why do you bother to answer this?
Are you now telling me what posts I can and cannot respond to...
Oh, for heaven's sake. are you completely incapable of accepting any criticism?
Oh, for heaven's sake. are you completely incapable of accepting any criticism?
You have the damn cheek to give me warning points, when yoy insult me and are obviously drunk.. You can stick your warning points up your arse. .;
John can ban me ...I don't give a toss..
;
I am not responsible for your Warning Points. Jesus Bloody Christ. Why do you think it was me?
Did you get a bit cross because you weren't able to bully someone else? So blame me for doing for Gertrude what I would have done for you.
;
I am not responsible for your Warning Points. Jesus Bloody Christ. Why do you think it was me?
Did you get a bit cross because you weren't able to bully someone else? So blame me for doing for Gertrude what I would have done for you.
It's OK I've sorted it.. Slarti... One post in 4 months but feels he has the right to moderate.. What a laugh
from what ive read..if Im not banned from posting for being a dick head....its the portuguese who hold the samples wanted by the Germans and SYBut which tests were inconclusive for to be retested? it not the bed spread sample that result is known,just cause it's in the press don't make it true.
But which tests were inconclusive for to be retested? it not the bed spread sample that result is known,just cause it's in the press don't make it true.
as far as SY are concerned it seems its some recovered hair strands still held by the portuguese
If SY have all the files then why should it not have all the results of any forensics, if this German matched to any that were unidentified then it would be a slam dunk,this is not the case imo.
Despite the headlines I'll venture there is cooperation going on ,its just that the rabid brit press isn't in on it, nor should it be and it rankles.
imo of course.
But you decided that it was me. Have you any idea of how offensive that was?
I thought it was a good discussion before you went a bit too far, but that was neither here nor there to me. I don't actually care anyway. I only ever defend when I feel the need. I don't go around Deleting and issuing Warning Points on a perfectly logical discussion, which I thought is was, despite the fact that you and I did not agree. You should have known this, as should everyone else. THIS IS NOT MY BAG AND NEVER HAS BEEN.
I, for one, have found you to be fair to everyone, even if you disagree with them.
Maybe it's the COVID-19 full moon that's getting people more irrascible than usual...
If SY have all the files then why should it not have all the results of any forensics, if this German matched to any that were unidentified then it would be a slam dunk,this is not the case imo.
Despite the headlines I'll venture there is cooperation going on ,its just that the rabid brit press isn't in on it, nor should it be and it rankles.
imo of course.
What forensics do you mean?
Everything taken by the PJ initially,seems inconceivable that OG wouldn't have received them.
We have no idea what is in the inaccessible portion of the files, one way or another.
I haven't found anything about a forensic sweep (which could be anonymised) in a camper van.
But which tests were inconclusive for to be retested? it not the bed spread sample that result is known,just cause it's in the press don't make it true.
Indeed - the evidence that was collected was found to be "inconclusive" in terms of identifying for sure the DNA of MM. Science moves forward though and we do now have claims that a conclusive analysis is attainable.
Billy, it was a mixed sample from as many as five people. It is impossible to separate the DNA, unless the Scientists had the DNA of the five people to compare it with.
Maybe not as many as five... maybe three.... and in this case the scientists do have refernec samples of at least five people. I'd like to see Dr Perlin attempt to sepearate the DNA. He claims he may be able to.
Maybe not as many as five... maybe three.... and in this case the scientists do have refernec samples of at least five people. I'd like to see Dr Perlin attempt to sepearate the DNA. He claims he may be able to.
Have you checked out what Dr Perlin's claims are and how his lab might be useful, or not, in this case?
Not without of the DNA of the people in the mix.
Billy, it was a mixed sample from as many as five people. It is impossible to separate the DNA, unless the Scientists had the DNA of the five people to compare it with.Really? What about DNA from one or more of them? Why would you need all of them to confirm one?
Really? What about DNA from one or more of them? Why would you need all of them to confirm one?If there was a mixture of all 5 persons I'm not certain how accurate the identification would be. It would start to become like a Lotto you could get millions of winning combinations.
The thread seems to have moved from discussing whether the dog alerts are evidence to discussing the forensic evidence. In my opinion the dog alerts could be used as evidence, but only if there was other evidence suggesting that Madeleine died and that the location of her death was apartment 5A. As death doesn't always produce forensic evidence the lack of it doesn't rule out the possibilty of death in 5A.Dog alerts - samples get taken - DNA analysis - Interpretation. they all follow each other.
Dog alerts - samples get taken - DNA analysis - Interpretation. they all follow each other.So a German nonce killed MM in 5a, cleaned up, then took her with him now? I need to loop back in.
So a German nonce killed MM in 5a, cleaned up, then took her with him now? I need to loop back in.Not in my theory. But everyone can try and develop their own theory.
So a German nonce killed MM in 5a, cleaned up, then took her with him now? I need to loop back in.
The thread seems to have moved from discussing whether the dog alerts are evidence to discussing the forensic evidence. In my opinion the dog alerts could be used as evidence, but only if there was other evidence suggesting that Madeleine died and that the location of her death was apartment 5A. As death doesn't always produce forensic evidence the lack of it doesn't rule out the possibilty of death in 5A.
i cant see how it could be used as evidence when grime and harrison both say they have no evidentail value and Grimes comment re which alerts could become corroberated. If he has changed his mind...which he appears to have then that makes him an unreliable witness.Marty Grime is preeminent in his field, with his services sought after globally.
i cant see how it could be used as evidence when grime and harrison both say they have no evidentail value and Grimes comment re which alerts could become corroberated. If he has changed his mind...which he appears to have then that makes him an unreliable witness.
As you know, it's not Harrison or Grime's job to decide what is or is not evidence. If a defence team believe the alerts are useful to a case the judge would be the person who would decide whether to allow them to be admitted or not.
We've been through this before.. With Grime Harrison saying the alerts have no evidential value I think you are dreaming
We've been through this before.. With Grime Harrison saying the alerts have no evidential value I think you are dreamingThe majority of the jurors in the Gilroy case must have been dreaming too. zzZZZZzzzZZZZzzZZZzzzZzzz
I realise that you have relied on what they said, but it has been shown that it's not a police decision.
We've been through this before.. With Grime Harrison saying the alerts have no evidential value I think you are dreaming
It's the judges decision based on what the experts say... That's why I rely on what the experts say
I think it is all yesterday's news pretty much as it was on the day and hour the actual forensic report came through from the FSS showing that there was no forensic evidence to back up the wild claims made by Amaral.
A child's body sniffed through feet of concrete indeed !!!! etc. But we've seen the reality of the Jersey visit and read about the aftermath, so I think it is well beyond time the myth of the dogs was laid to rest,
They ignore the tests being done to see what gases are emitted from a pig [which Grime trained Eddie on] and human cadaver. They showed that during the first stage of decomposition, there was no gas. Which means if Madeleine lay dead in the apartment she would have had to have lain there for quite a while for the cadaver scent to be alerted to by Eddie. All rubbish as far as I'm concerned. Eddie smelt something but it wasn't cadaver scent.
It seems that the expert view has evolved in that the evidence of dependable handlers with dogs whose training and reliability records are well documented is admissable as part of a body of evidence.
It seems that the expert view has evolved in that the evidence of dependable handlers with dogs whose training and reliability records are well documented is admissable as part of a body of evidence.
I don't think a lay person's opinion is going to affect anything. Others will decide whether a dog's alerts are worthy of being included as evidence or not.
But Grime...Harrison...Cassella have told us they are notWhen?
I don't think a lay person's opinion is going to affect anything. Others will decide whether a dog's alerts are worthy of being included as evidence or not.
We've been through this before.. With Grime Harrison saying the alerts have no evidential value I think you are dreaming
IMO it was evidence but needed something to back it up.
Wich I believe would have been Maddie's body.
Evidence is either evidence or not - not having no evidential value.
Surely if they hadn't anything it would be called NO evidence
I don't think it is due to changes in expert opinion. I think it has always rested on the reliability of the dogs and the evidence they uncovered. Grime told us that in his report from Luz.
The fact is that Eddie and Keela did not find any evidence in Luz which fits with sceptic beliefs. Indeed I believe that expert opinion at the time was that their performance in Luz in combination with that in Jersey, the work of dogs and their handlers was set back many years.
We're discussing the admissability of dog alerts as evidence, not the existence or non-existence of forensic evidence.
I think the use of dog handler evidence in the Gilroy case in 2012 destroys your argument. The fact that Eddie and Keela alerted is evidence and in Keela's case her alerts were confirmed by forensic evidence.
i dont think one case in i dont know how many years destroys any argumnet...particularly as the evidence admissibilty has been contested. Keela alerts to blood and as grime correctly said this was the only alert that could be corroborated.
so again do you ahe a case in the UK where grimes evidence without forensic corroboration was admitted. According to amaral the dogs help solve 200 crimes so it should be easy for you
Do you not realise what no evidential value means?
I think the use of dog handler evidence in the Gilroy case in 2012 destroys your argument. The fact that Eddie and Keela alerted is evidence and in Keela's case her alerts were confirmed by forensic evidence.
I think dog alerts will continue to be used when required, now that they have been used successfully.
I think dog alerts will continue to be used when required, now that they have been used successfully.
As has been explained on numerous occasions there was overwhelming evidence against Suzanne Pilley's murderer the weakest of which in my opinion was the dog handler's.
There was absolutely no supporting evidence of any kind against the prime subjects in Luz nor was there rhyme or reason for Eddie's 'alerts' and that is confirmed in the PJ final report.
So do you agree with Dave that the explanation for all Eddie's alerts was that Grime gave Eddie (subconscious) cues? I've watched all the videos many times and as a lay person I'm certainly not convinced by Dave's claim.
Why was eddie called back twice to the Mccanns car...but not too any other..
Why did Grime say he didnt know it was the mccanns car when there were posters in the windows
To me Eddie's behaviour changed markedly before he's called back to the car, and what of the other alerts? The posters don't prove Grime knew it was their hire car. Also you are implying that Grime has already made up his mind about the death and who is responsible. Why on earth would Grime encourage false alerts - that wouldn't do his reputation any good!
Yes don't you - It means in support evidence.
IMO evidence but need something else to support it as I said in the first place.
so now you are assessing eddies behaviour...im sorry but thats an absolute joke..ive already expaline dall the other alerts....bottom line...no evidential value
We all know that Eddie alerted. I don't see any convincing evidence that Eddie was given subconcious cues by his handler. Furthermore such an explanation makes no sense. Why would Grime want his dog to false alert?No evidence? You obviously haven’t warched the videos of Grime calling the dog back to the car, the one and only car covered in posters of Madeleine.
No evidence? You obviously haven’t warched the videos of Grime calling the dog back to the car, the one and only car covered in posters of Madeleine.There is no evidence that Eddie could read posters.
There is no evidence that Eddie could read posters.
But grime could and grime was the one calling eddie back and grime is the one claiming he didnt know it was the mccanns carMaybe he couldn't read them either. Did he see them?
But grime could and grime was the one calling eddie back and grime is the one claiming he didnt know it was the mccanns car
There's no evidence that Grime would want his dog to make several false alerts, imo.
Maybe he couldn't read them either. Did he see them?
That would be a very stupid thing to do, wouldn't it?
That would be a very stupid thing to do, wouldn't it?
Indeed. IMO there's no chance of Grime encouraging false alerts. Furthermore I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Grime acted in this way.
Indeed. IMO there's no chance of Grime encouraging false alerts. Furthermore I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Grime acted in this way.Why is there “no chance” that Grime could have unwittingly influenced the dog to alert?
Indeed. IMO there's no chance of Grime encouraging false alerts. Furthermore I've yet to see any convincing evidence that Grime acted in this way.
There is evidence on record that Grime encouraged alerts
Well I'm not convinced by it and furthermore it would make no sense for Grime to actually want his dog to make false alerts.
There is evidence on record that Grime encouraged alerts
Just a reminder ~ ZAMPO and Thomas Quick the mass murderer who wasn't. Read all about it on a forum near to you.
And what's your explanation for Zampo's false alerts?There doesn’t necessarily need to be an explanation, all that there needs to be is an acknowledgement that “dogs don’t lie” is a load of bull.
There doesn’t necessarily need to be an explanation, all that there needs to be is an acknowledgement that “dogs don’t lie” is a load of bull.
Here's some forensic science research.... and for me an explanation is needed. As G-Unit says; "question everything"!!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17403590/
...."Results: The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100). "....
According to the conclusions of the SCCRCGiven that I think it may be a long time before dog alerts alone become admissible in Scottish Courts. Gilroy was convicted on the basis of the evidence against him which I think was substantial.
- the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable
- the evidence should not have been before the trial court
- Gilroy would have been found guilty of murder without the dog evidence
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission closed David Gilroy’s case for a miscarriage of justice part of the basis for which was as follows ...
One strand was fully and professionally examined by the SCCRC.
They concluded that the evidence given by the dog handler was unreliable.
They say that evidence should not have been before the trial court.
However, they also say that the absence of the dog evidence would not have changed the guilty verdict.
http://www.gilroyfamily.info/news.asp
What was this evidence given by the dog handler? How was it unreliable? Is this unreliability connected to Grime and Eddie? Can the same unreliability be transferred to the MM case? We need some context please.
I dare you to take some drugs past sniffer dogs at an airport ?>)()<OK, you explain the numerous false alerts by Zampo then.
I dare you to take some drugs past sniffer dogs at an airport ?>)()<
Link please ?
called back to the car twice...and similar incidents in the search of the apartment according to teh PJ...its in the files Ive supplied it several times
called back to the car twice...and similar incidents in the search of the apartment according to teh PJ...its in the files Ive supplied it several times
Obviously never observed or been around working dogs.
The PJ knew as much about how cadaver dogs work as you do. (not much)
Then why was the dog not called back to other cars
Grime watched and understood his dog's body language closely and knew when the dog was in the vicinity of the scent he was trained to find.
Speculation.....there is still no evidence...let alone proof taht the alerts by eddie were correct.
There's no evidence, let alone proof, that Madeleine was abducted.
Yes there is.. It can be proven on the balance of probability by elimination of the other possibilities . Not proven absolutely but on the balance of probability
I have seen nothing which eliminates other possibilities.
I dont totally eliminate other possibilities...its deciding...on the evidence...what is probable...
I dont see parental involvement as probable...that has to increase the probability of the other possibilities
All scenarios are possible. Probability seems to be related to opinion rather than evidence.
There's no evidence, let alone proof, that Madeleine was abducted.
i think that is untrue....based on evidence..what do you think is the probability of parental involvemnet
Strange how OG are looking at abduction then isn't it? The fact that Madeleine is missing and has not been found is evidence of abduction.
It's also evidence of death and a successful body disposal.
It has been proven there was no way the McCann's could have disposed of Madeleine's body. Give me a good example of how they did it.
I'm not mathematically inclined, so calculating probabilities isn't my thing.I'm sure you understand the words likely or unlikely... Which one do you think it is
I'm sure you understand the words likely or unlikely... Which one do you think it is
I say again, I don't know what happened that night. Two possibilities rely on what the parents and their friends said. The parents dismissed woke and wandered, but that was just their opinion. They proposed a stranger abduction immediately, but they and their friends were the source of any evidence pointing at that possibility. There is very little independant evidence of what happened.
The archiving report by the PJ said woke and wandered was highly unlikeley. Based on everything we know i think its highly unlikely the parents were involved...there is no real evidence against the parents according to the PJ...and it seems SY and the German police are investigating an abduction.
I say again, I don't know what happened that night. Two possibilities rely on what the parents and their friends said. The parents dismissed woke and wandered, but that was just their opinion. They proposed a stranger abduction immediately, but they and their friends were the source of any evidence pointing at that possibility. There is very little independant evidence of what happened.The witness statements made are evidence are they not?
There's no 'real' evidence against anyone imo. All the evidence is weak.
There's no 'real' evidence against anyone imo. All the evidence is weak.
The witness statements made are evidence are they not?
Indeed, but statements aren't necessarily true.
Indeed, but statements aren't necessarily true.
The investigators have to decide who they beleive is telling the truth...it seems they have decided the McCanns are.
there is nothing to suggest they are lying.
Investigator's opinions can't be kept out of investigations, but they still need to back them up using evidence. OG have offered no evidence whatsoever to support their opinion that the parents are telling the truth. Simon Foy tried by saying "they were where they were" when Madeleine disappeared. He seems to have overlooked the fact that the time of the disappearance is unknown.They arr experienced and it seems based on their experience they believe the mccanns are telling the truth.
there is evidence the parents are not involved...and no real evidence they are
there is evidence the parents are not involved...and no real evidence they are
Investigator's opinions can't be kept out of investigations, but they still need to back them up using evidence. OG have offered no evidence whatsoever to support their opinion that the parents are telling the truth. Simon Foy tried by saying "they were where they were" when Madeleine disappeared. He seems to have overlooked the fact that the time of the disappearance is unknown.They don’t need to back them up or offer evidence to you, because despite what you may think you are neither judge nor jury in this case.
They don’t need to back them up or offer evidence to you, because despite what you may think you are neither judge nor jury in this case.
I'm sure they know that many people doubt the parents. If they have evidence that they couldn't be involved in Madeleine's disappearance it's heartless of them not to share it and end the speculation imo.
I'm sure they know that many people doubt the parents. If they have evidence that they couldn't be involved in Madeleine's disappearance it's heartless of them not to share it and end the speculation imo.LOL. As if there is anything at all that the police could say that would alter the opinion of that small spiteful band of [ censored word ]s.
Speculation.....there is still no evidence...let alone proof taht the alerts by eddie were correct.
Just a reminder ~ ZAMPO and Thomas Quick the mass murderer who wasn't. Read all about it on a forum near to you.
In the Quick case none of the police-trained dogs gave false alerts.Cite please.
It's more plausible, imo, than your belief that Grime deliberately encouraged false alerts. Such a suggestion makes no sense.I think you may very well have that wrong and I think you need a cite to back up your accusation.
I'm sure they know that many people doubt the parents. If they have evidence that they couldn't be involved in Madeleine's disappearance it's heartless of them not to share it and end the speculation imo.
There's no 'real' evidence against anyone imo. All the evidence is weak.
The PJ knew as much about how cadaver dogs work as you do. (not much)
Could you explain what the so called alert to Cuddle Cat was all about...I might not be an expert on scent dogs but I can smell a rat if theres one aboutWhat are you like with mice?
What are you like with mice?
Proven how?
It has been proven that Gerry was sitting in the Tapas Bar when Kate give the alert.
That doesn't prove he didn't do it.
It has been proven that Gerry was sitting in the Tapas Bar when Kate give the alert.
According to their friends he was, but I don't know what that proves.
According to their friends he was, but I don't know what that proves.
It proves that he wasn't in 5a when Madeleine disappeared, he was sitting in the Tapas Bar. Jez saw him and chatted with him after he had done his check on Madeleine. He behaved normally.
It proves that he wasn't in 5a when Madeleine disappeared, he was sitting in the Tapas Bar. Jez saw him and chatted with him after he had done his check on Madeleine. He behaved normally.
What time did Maddie disappear?
It could be anytime between the McCanns leaving for the Tapas bar & 10pm.
Gerry claims to have seen her around 9pm, but we only have his word for it, & Matt never saw her.
it proves that either all his friends have lied to the police...risking a prison sentence in a portuguese jail..loss of their jobs..houses...careers...possibility of children beiing taken into care...knowing that if just one of them cracks all this will happen...and they have kept this charade up for 13 yeras...or they are telling the truth
it proves that either all his friends have lied to the police...risking a prison sentence in a portuguese jail..loss of their jobs..houses...careers...possibility of children beiing taken into care...knowing that if just one of them cracks all this will happen...and they have kept this charade up for 13 yeras...or they are telling the truth
Or they could just have been mistaken.
The waiter said they had gone by 9:50. !0 minutes before 10pm.
What, seven highly intelligent professionals, with integrity, plus all the other customers, waiters, bar staff and manager all THOUGHT Gerry was sat there, they served him his food, gave him wine...and each and everyone f of them hallucinated????
That one waiter was wrong in that case.
Everyone else said they were ALL there when Kate left at 10pm
When she rushed back screaming they all jumped up and dashed out leaving one of the group’s morgen sat there. The staff all witnessed it too.
That waiter is royally wrong.
Sigh ... incredibly on a dog thread the forum has veered to having yet another discriminatory binge with Madeleine's parents at the centre of it.
At least the change of tack appears to suggest the recognition that the dogs are a busted flush.
No it means that if you accept the dog alerts are significant then you have to attempt to explain where a body is... and that takes you back to the timeline.... and Smithman, of course. These tenets of evidence are intrinsically linked.
What do you suggest? One long and rambling thread about absolutely everything.
Hahahaha - sorry!! But yes it's hard to avoid the crossover... I hold my hand up as a bad offender.... I did try though and resurrected a timeline thread!!! 8(>((
You seem to have an unlimited ability to pour out your inaccurate opinions on any subject. There were six people at the Tapas at 10pm, plus Gerry McCann. There were no other customers there and no manager. The staff that were there didn't know who was who; if asked which one was Gerry McCann they couldn't have told you. The group were served their meals at 9:30pm, apart from Russell so no-one interacted with the group after that. One employee was sure what he saw;
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
There are more;
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
He heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40 from P**** B******, a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
You seem to have an unlimited ability to pour out your inaccurate opinions on any subject. There were six people at the Tapas at 10pm, plus Gerry McCann. There were no other customers there and no manager. The staff that were there didn't know who was who; if asked which one was Gerry McCann they couldn't have told you. The group were served their meals at 9:30pm, apart from Russell so no-one interacted with the group after that. One employee was sure what he saw;
Later, at around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
There are more;
He knows about the situation that happened at the Ocean Club concerning the disappearance of a little given that on the day in question (03/05/2007) he was on duty and was contacted by a member of staff from the Tapas Restaurant between 09.30 and 22.00 who informed him that the daughter of some guests who were dining there had disappeared.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HELDER_LUIS.htm
When questioned about the disappearance, she says she heard about it on that night at about 22.00 when an English tourist arrived at the Millenium restaurant to ask whether anyone had seen a lost little girl.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_ROSA.htm
He heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40 from P**** B******, a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
What do you suggest? One long and rambling thread about absolutely everything.
Isn't that how it works .
Isn't that how it works .
Not on this Forum it doesn't. Although we are all guilty of wandering.
We already have a wandering off topic thread where that is acceptable. The other threads all have specific topics where a little discipline can be exercised to remain on topic although it appears that is not the name of the game.
This one is about dogs ... might be an idea to work that into posts.
And you seem to have the ability to believe anything you read — providing it suits your agenda.
That statement is the ONLY one that is totally inaccurate. It’s at complete odds with all the other statements made by every other witness. It’s also terribly VAGUE. It’s all “between about...”. That’s either been wrongly translated, or the employee wasn’t sure what time it was.
Not only are his timings incorrect, so is his version of how many people were there.
For your information, because it’s evident you don’t know, that Portuguese statement has obviously been lost in translation. I’ve been to Portugal, and I’ve lived abroad too. I also have a close friend who’s an interpreter who translates official government documents, and despite having worked for the government for over 25 years, and speaking fluent English, even she sometimes has difficulty translating documents if what she’s translating from isn’t written concisely or the grammar is poor — and often has to double check on what she suspects must be errors.
As an aside, the Portuguese rarely speak any English, and even the interpreters seem to have difficulty translating into English. That’s a well-known fact. Of course, you’ll find some who speak good English, but it’s rare.
That statement made by that employee totally contradicts every other statement made by EVERYONE else.
Therefore, his recount can be dismissed. He’s got the timings completely wrong, and he’s also forgotten that one of the Tapas9 mother’s who went with them on the holiday, remained sat at the table when Kate rushed in at approximately 10:10pm screaming that Maddie had been taken.
It’s been worldwide news for 13 years of what happened that night.
The group block booked that table for 8:30pm nightly, yet you’re saying this employee — who didn’t even work in the Tapas Bar — claimed their meals were served at 9:30pm. I don’t believe that. If the restaurant was almost empty why would they be waiting one hour for their food? Also, if they had Tapas, which I suspect they did considering it was the Taoas Bar, small various dishes are served throughout, and they start coming out within minutes...
That statement is wrong.
It simply highlights how terribly sloppy the Portuguese police are.
As it happens, one of the Tapas9, Martin, did the 9:30 check on the McCanns’ children as his apartment was next to his and his wife’s — and as he was checking on HIS children he offered to do Kate’s check for her. Which friends do, you know?
He got back at around 9:40PM — and you’re saying this employee said it was THEN everyone ran out saying a child had vanished.
This is complete BS.
Yeah they go wandering and have to called back by its handler.
The Tapas 9 statements aren't confirmed by anyone outside their group. In fact the statements of uninvolved people disagree with the group's story. You have chosen to believe the group's story as factual. That doesn't mean it is.Spelling error I believe for Matthew Oldfield.
PS Who's Martin oh knowledgeable one?
Spelling error I believe for Matthew Oldfield.
Do you? I don't.
Not on this Forum it doesn't. Although we are all guilty of wandering.
That doesn't prove he didn't do it.
No it means that if you accept the dog alerts are significant then you have to attempt to explain where a body is... and that takes you back to the timeline.... and Smithman, of course. These tenets of evidence are intrinsically linked.
Was that a typo?
Didn’t you mean “wondering”?
I’ve been told that women wonder while men wander...
Wandering off topic is a woman’s thing, though...
@)(++(* The waiter who served them was wrong. Matt Oldfield said Kate left at 9:50 NOT 10pm and had a watch. Was he wrong too?
The Tapas 9 statements aren't confirmed by anyone outside their group. In fact the statements of uninvolved people disagree with the group's story. You have chosen to believe the group's story as factual. That doesn't mean it is.
PS Who's Martin oh knowledgeable one?
Do you think Kate McCann looks like a man?
Smithman has been done and dusted — even he realised that when the police told him his timings were wrong.
These “tenets” of EVIDENCE that you like to allude to don’t exist — they’re in your vivid imagination
I don’t believe the family of nine all got their “timings wrong”. I believe they were accurate to within five minutes of the sighting.... Who do you think they saw - an innocent holiday maker? Why was this person never identified in what Colin Sutton describes as a very thorough investigation?What time was the Smith sighting?
I don’t believe the family of nine all got their “timings wrong”. I believe they were accurate to within five minutes of the sighting.... Who do you think they saw - an innocent holiday maker? Why was this person never identified in what Colin Sutton describes as a very thorough investigation?I know you are responding to ISpy but the same principle can be applied to the Tapas group i.e ‘I don’t believe a group of 7 all got their timings wrong’?
Do you think it’s appropriate to put laughing emojis on such a tragic topic?
You do realise, don’t you, that you’re shining a light on your true psyche...
*&^^&
I'm laughing at you and your nonsense posts @)(++(* And you will probably disappear once the German is found not to be involved in Madeleine's disappearance.Unless he has a cast iron alibi for the night in question how do you imagine it’s going to be proven he wasn’t involved?
I don’t believe the family of nine all got their “timings wrong”. I believe they were accurate to within five minutes of the sighting.... Who do you think they saw - an innocent holiday maker? Why was this person never identified in what Colin Sutton describes as a very thorough investigation?
I know you are responding to ISpy but the same principle can be applied to the Tapas group i.e ‘I don’t believe a group of 7 all got their timings wrong’?
The police aren’t interested in the sighting, so why are you?
No, it wasn't a typo. I don't know which of you are men and which are women. But I don't do a lot of Wondering. I know that most men are useless and illogical.
Unless he has a cast iron alibi for the night in question how do you imagine it’s going to be proven he wasn’t involved?
I'm laughing at you and your nonsense posts @)(++(* And you will probably disappear once the German is found not to be involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
New test results will clear him. The Germans will have to do them to prove he was involved!
SY are very interested in the sighting remember.
NONE of any of the individuals statements are confirmed by anyone else.
Whatever made you think they should be?
Each statement is taken separately: didn’t you know that?
You’ll always have contradictions in peoples statements; not because they’re necessarily lying, but because people forgot certain things/times/occurrences, or some people simply make mistakes. But when a bundle is put together it forms a picture that should add up. And like it or not (and you don’t like it) the FACT remains that what was said about the evening and timings was correct.
Where YOU come seriously unstuck, is by claiming (despite not being there) that they all left the Tapas Bar at 9:40pm.
They did not.
Besides the majority of people giving the correct times, the mere fact that Kate and Gerry arrived at the Tapas Bar at 8:30pm — and between then and when Kate came running back saying Maddie had been taken — Kate’s child-check was the THIRD one.
They’d agreed to do half hourly checks.
Gerry did his at 9PM
That was when Jane Tanner saw him about 10 minutes later as she was doing hers and saw Gerry chatting to a neighbour outside the apartment.
Gerry then RETURNED to the Tapas Bar.
At 9:30PM it was Kate’s turn to check, but as their friend was checking on HIS children at the same time, and his apartment was next door to theirs, he offered to check in for Kate and Gerry. Which friends do.
He then returned about 9:40PM.
So you tell me how, according to you, the whole table jumped up and ran out BEFORE Kate went to do HER check at 10PM?!
The family of nine consisted of children too
And they’d all been boozing in the pub, except for the underage children.
They must have been tired having flown in from Ireland just that day; and it was dark too. As they all left the pub after drinking goodness knows how much, I’d guess the reason they left at around 10pm is that they were dog tired (their children must have been!) and they probably didn’t even glance at their watches — they just wanted to fall in bed and sleep.
That road was apparently quite narrow, with little walkways and stone steps in all directions, so to take in a strange man’s appearance, facial features, expression and stance seems odd to me...
You’re right it was a very thorough investigation, so thorough in fact, that CS later down the line confirmed Gerry McCann was in the OC Tapas bar at 10 pm, and had been since 9:15pm
So that ruled him out — which was a ludicrous suggestion in the first place.
The Portuguese Police even told Mr Smith they’d confirmed where Gerry was at that time many months later and that’s when Mr Smith said no more. He was obviously mistaken, or perhaps was susceptible to suggestion...I feel he was embarrassed for wasting police time and felt foolish, hence why he insisted he wasn’t to be named in the press
As for the man seen, who the Smiths claimed looked “local”, was slim — which I wouldn’t describe Gerry as: I’d describe him as medium weight, well-set and fit — he certainly didn’t look thin. Nor does he look Mediterranean , albeit with LIGHT brown hair...it’s obvious the man was either a local dad taking his child home, or possibly a holidaymaker from another part of Portugal (they do tend to take their children out late in Southern Europe) and he probably never even saw or knew he’d been mentioned. Especially if he didn’t read English newspapers, spoke English – and if he did see the photo-fit a year later he probably didn’t even recognise himself!
I don’t know why you’re going on about this.
The police aren’t interested in the sighting, so why are you?
You seem to be using the statements made by the T9 to corroborate the statements made by the T9.
Really?
Just you wait and see
That evil sadist will be caged...
You know, people like you concern me. You seem to almost LIKE that evil paedophile; the rapist, child molester, torturer, murderer...
Doesn’t that worry you?
I think the words of Brieta are worth repeating here: "there is absolutely no excuse for sinking to the depths of personal comment.
Please desist. Not only is it impolite, it is against forum rules."
You do seem to be utterly convinced that this new suspect is not involved in Madeline's abduction.
How can you be so sure?
I said the circumstantial evidence against the German is worthy of further investigation.
However I'm yet to be shown any evidence of an abduction.
Were the dog alerts evidence of anything? On their own, no. The resultant samples of "human cellular material" collected from areas where the dogs alerted are certainly evidence.
If MM was abducted what evidence would you expect to find?
We're all shedding human cellular material constantly all over the place by way of skin cells and hairs. What relevance do you see with the hcm collected from 5a?
Thats the question 3 police forces can't seemingly answer.
Perhaps because the soc doesn't lend itself to yielding evidence? Patio doors left unsecured, a small sleeping child scooped up and out the front door.
A while back the Chilleden murders were reviewed by a team of experts as some believe the person convicted might b a MoJ. The victims were tied up and despite the fact the ties were forensically analysed no dna was found:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08sxrhz
You seem to be using the statements made by the T9 to corroborate the statements made by the T9.
Speculation without facts is a waste of time. The whole bolded paragraph above is irrelevant because the Smiths DID NOT arrive in Portugal on 3rd May.
Smithman had a job to do. Lucky for him the calls began after it was done &%%6
OG won't comment on Smithman because he's very much part of the investigation! They cited section 30 in regards to questions about him - FOI.
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1205/investigations-and-proceedings-foi-section-30.pdf
In broad terms, the section 30 exemptions exist to
ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences
and the protection of confidential sources. They recognise the
need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a
particular investigation or set of proceedings, or the
investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including
any prejudice to future investigations and proceedings.
A) Has the man in the efits been identified?
Operation Grange is a live investigation, we do not comment on
identification as this information is held for the purpose of the
investigation and therefore falls within the section 30 exemption.
I think the words of Brieta are worth repeating here: "there is absolutely no excuse for sinking to the depths of personal comment.
Please desist. Not only is it impolite, it is against forum rules."
You do seem to be utterly convinced that this new suspect is not involved in Madeline's abduction.
How can you be so sure?
I said the circumstantial evidence against the German is worthy of further investigation.
However I'm yet to be shown any evidence of an abduction.
Were the dog alerts evidence of anything? On their own, no. The resultant samples of "human cellular material" collected from areas where the dogs alerted are certainly evidence.
Cite please
When someone says they’d like to have a drink with a convicted paedophile, rapist, torturer, thief, murderer (which all intelligent know he is — he SAID he wanted to kill a child after using and torturing them)...I have evry right to question that individual
In fact, his comment is s so concerning I have every right to report him to the police
Police would be verrrry interested in why he’d want to associate with a convicted paedophile.
You may wish to protect such people, which shines a spotlight on you too!
But let me warn you now, if you’re ignorant enough to think police don’t monitor these forums you’re very, very wrong.
Fact.
Scotland yard were not interested in any of the materials collected for forensic testing after the British dogs visit to Luz and I have never seen any interest being shown by the Brits once they had the test results in their hand.
The Rebello investigation ~ who also had an understanding of the forensic results ~ were disinterested as well as being a little perplexed after viewing the dog video.
They couldn't come to grips with the animal passing the same object on a number of occasions, even playing with it, only to alert to it a little later when it was put in a cupboard.
Scotland Yard were however deeply interested in retesting and testing for the first time, hairs found in the McCann apartment; the Portuguese did not allow them to do that ~ permission was categorically refused.
Snip
A Met Police team led by DCI Andy Redwood announced their wish to look again at forensic material collected in the early days of the Madeleine McCann investigation during a visit to the university town of Coimbra earlier this month.
They met with the bosses of Portugal’s Institute of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences in Coimbra, two hours drive north of Lisbon, where most of the material, also said to include 25 blood and saliva samples, is held.
Institute president Francisco Brizida, said afterwards: “I have the certainty they went away very happy.”
“The tonic of the meeting was about the possibility of the tests on samples collected in 2007 being re-done.
“The British police wanted clarification on the examinations the institute had carried out during the early stages of the inquiry in the areas of genetics and biology.
“We talked about non-identified material that was collected in Madeleine’s apartment.
“I can’t say for sure new DNA tests that didn’t yield a conclusive result in 2007 could now yield an objective result.
“But technology nowadays allows us to go further than years ago in areas like genetic markers.
“Several possibilities are open. One could be that British police do the tests in Britain with British technology and another that the institute does them.
“But that’s an area in which the institute does not have the last word. There’s a situation of judicial cooperation and a new international letter of request would be necessary.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/528865/Madeleine-McCann-human-hairs-hunt-Portugal
Snip
In 2012, Scotland Yard detectives visited a Portuguese laboratory and asked them to retest the hairs found in the apartment. Their request was denied.
https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/06/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-police-reject-request-retest.html
I think you must have missed their response to a FOI request with regards to the DNA data. It was posted on this site yesterday or the day before. The evidence forms part of an on-going investigation.
What an ignorant sweeping statement
You’re hell bent on protecting him, aren’t you?
And no-one seeing this?
Cites are supposed to be provided, but that's something you usually refuse to comply with. You claimed the Smiths arrived in Portugal on 3rd May; where is your cite? I know you are wrong and I said so. If you want people to believe what you said I suggest you find the cite you need.
Gerry McCann is 6”2”; has a large build fairly muscular, broad frame; and wasn’t suntanned. For much of theI didn't read the whole post, because I've learnt to skim through the dross. But this jumped out.
I never said I wanted to have a drink with him.
I said I'd rather have a beer with him than the McCanns.
It's what's known as wumming, & if that's illegal then I'm surprised the police haven't arrested me years ago, rather than pursuing fictional child abductors.
Doing new tests is NOT protecting him! Are you mad? Performing new tests could prove that evil German was involved! As you think he is why would you not want new tests?
Testing the data is possible. At least pretend to try to catch up.
I can’t be bothered to scroll back for what you’re referring to, but I think it may be when you suggested taking new DNA testing from DATA. You can’t do that — it isn’t organic.
No, I am not mad, and I’m now WEIRD, either...unlike some who would enjoy a beer with a paedophilic rapist
I didn't read the whole post, because I've learnt to skim through the dross. But this jumped out.Depends whether you believe Sexy Sadie or not...
You are on a colossal wind up.
Gerry is literally 6" shorter than your description. And 'large build', 'fairly muscular'?
Are you confusing Gerry with Henry Cavill?
I didn't read the whole post, because I've learnt to skim through the dross. But this jumped out.
You are on a colossal wind up.
Gerry is literally 6" shorter than your description. And 'large build', 'fairly muscular'?
Are you confusing Gerry with Henry Cavill?
Depends whether you believe Sexy Sadie or not...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.msg61862#msg61862 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.msg61862#msg61862)
Depends whether you believe Sexy Sadie or not...
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.msg61862#msg61862 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1101.msg61862#msg61862)
You’re constantly banging on about providing cites, but not all cites are correct. Didn’t you know that?
Of course I sometimes makes occasional errors, but they’re minor ones — not imaginary delusions I’ve dreamed up in my head out of desperation.
Yep, I got travel details mixed up: they hadn’t travelled that day — Mr Smith’s son, DIL & grandchildren were flying BACK to Ireland about 10 hours after their alleged sighting.
But the FACT remains that the Smith family had spent that last night of their holiday (except Smith and his wife who were staying on) dining and drinking out and then ending it at Kelly’s Bar for another top-up of booze. Mr Smith’s receipt (which I have a copy of) shows that he paid for his drink at 21:50 hours.
His son paid for his at 21:49 hours.
The walk from Kelly’s bar to where the sighting took place was approximately 5/10 minutes when you take into account his DIL was feeling sick, the children were young, and they would have been strolling back to their apartment.
Mr Smith admitted it was dark when they passed the man carrying a child — who was walking slap bang in the middle of the road (hardly a “hiding” action) and claimed the man was walking at a pace between “fast walking/running”. The passing of each other must have been fleeting, yet despite Mr Smith having been drinking, and NOT wearing his glasses, he seemed to go into some depth about the man and child’s appearance.
He described the man as around 5”7” or 5”8”, slim, looked like a local rather than tourist, and was suntanned.
Gerry McCann is 6”2”; has a large build fairly muscular, broad frame; and wasn’t suntanned. For much of the McCanns’ holiday it had been quite cold, and they’d had several days of rain.
I’ll supply photographs of Gerry taken that very day, where you’ll see he’s certainly not suntanned (one of the Smith group described the man as “sunburnt”) and said he was wearing a dark jacket, long trousers and looked maybe Mediterranean.
Mr Smith said the man defintely wasn’t Robert Murret (sp?) the first suspect, because he’d met him twice previously in Portugal, in a bar, but said he was inebriated when he saw him, so it was “hazy”. Mr Smith may have been inebriated on May 3rd too — he didn’t say — but he’d definitely been drinking, and as he wasn’t wearing his glasses his eyesight obviously wasn’t perfect. And it was dark too...
There’s also irrefutable proof that Gerry was INSIDE the Tapas Bar at 10pm when Kate went to do her check on the children, which MEANS the man the Smith family saw could not possibly have been Gerry. That’s why the Portuguese police themselves didn’t bother making appeals — they knew it wasn’t Gerry.
The police also has data from both Gerry and Kate’s mobile phone provider which showed all the numbers they called, received, all the text message timings, and location.
This time-wasting nonsense is wearying.
Oh, just to add...had that man the Smith family saw been Maddie’s abductor, it’s obvious he knew the area and back streets very well — as CB would have. The route he’d have to of taken from the OC is in a zig-zag, meaning he knew the back roads and where they led. Gerry had never been to the resort before, and as they’d spent all their days inside the complex (by the pool when it wasn’t raining, playing tennis etc) or at the beach with his family, he wouldn’t have even known where the back streets led. It’s all nonsense to suggest that man was Gerry when witnesses proved where he was at 10pm. Madness.
Testing the data is possible. At least pretend to try to catch up.
Revisionism. You didn't say that.
You can’t test it organically
It’s you who needs to catch up
When you are supposedly quoting a witness statement there's no excuse for getting it wrong or failing to provide a cite.
Mr Smith said the man he saw was 175-180m tall. That's between 5'9" and 5'11". Jez Wilkins described Gerry McCann as 5'10" - 6'0". Where did you find information saying he was 6'2"?
Oh look; sunburn!
(https://crimerocket2.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/image004-1.jpg)
Muscular? I don't think so.
(https://www.hellomagazine.com/imagenes/film/2020061091311/kate-and-gerry-mccann-statement-madeleine-disappearance-investigation/0-437-708/kate-gerry-5-z.jpg)
That image is unlike ALL the other images of Gerry McCann
Photographs can occasionally be misleading and the colour/contrast can make people look darker/fairer
You’ve taken time and trouble to search and search for one which makes them both appear darker than then they were
That smacks of desperation and fools no one
That image is unlike ALL the other images of Gerry McCann
Photographs can occasionally be misleading and the colour/contrast can make people look darker/fairer
You’ve taken time and trouble to search and search for one which makes them both appear darker than then they were
That smacks of desperation and fools no one
I haven't taken time to research anything, I just happen to remember the photo, it's from May 4th, when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes.
You obviously don’t have any understanding of grief, horror or shock
But many people are TOO stunned to cry. Some people don’t start crying until many weeks/months later.
That’s a FACT.
You’re clearly ignorant about such things, so to make nasty innuendos against a mother who’s had her little daughter stolen is absolutely ABHORRENT. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
I've never believed her daughter was stolen so, no shame here.
Who cares what YOU believe...
WOOF !!! Any one remember this is a dog thread ?
Ah yes - those well trained creatures whose alerts allowed the collection of "human cellular material" from the areas they marked.
If CB is ever charged I'm sure those samples (or the digital data) will have to be re-examined.
im sure they are meaningless...along with the alertsIt takes an understanding of the science. You should research it.
It takes an understanding of the science. You should research it.
I've never believed her daughter was stolen so, no shame here.If Madeleine was not stolen, what is your take on her been missing and not recovered?
If Madeleine was not stolen, what is your take on her been missing and not recovered?
Deceased and concealed seems quite likely... and you like to pass judgement on the basis of probability rather than evidence imo so for once I'm sure we'll agree.... (actually more than once but that would be off topic).
There were searches with dogs in the days following Madeleine's disappearance. Where do you suppose her body was concealed while that was going on?
I have no idea. Driven away somewhere, perhaps? Seems no point in trying to guess.
Unfortunately people have been guessing and worse than that, reaching unfounded conclusions for thirteen years.
I would suggest if the dogs were unable to find a hidden body soon after Madeleine vanished there wasn't one to be found in the environs of Luz.
Similarly, if the victim recovery dog brought over later in the year - and if the dogs brought over by Scotland Yard in 2014 in conjunction with probably thousands of domestic dogs ranging the hills and waste ground on their walkies haven't found a body, there wasn't one to be found.
Unfortunately people have been guessing and worse than that, reaching unfounded conclusions for thirteen years.
I would suggest if the dogs were unable to find a hidden body soon after Madeleine vanished there wasn't one to be found in the environs of Luz.
Similarly, if the victim recovery dog brought over later in the year - and if the dogs brought over by Scotland Yard in 2014 in conjunction with probably thousands of domestic dogs ranging the hills and waste ground on their walkies haven't found a body, there wasn't one to be found.
Not where they searched, obviously. I think the person carrying a child away from 5a (seen by the Smith family) either had access to a vehicle or arranged to meet someone else that did. This is just opinion - based on my believe she died in the apartment and that no body was recovered in PDL.
It wasn't Gerry he was at the Tapas bar. The abductor however could have met with someone.
We've already established that "about 10pm" is quite a wide period and the distance from the Smith sighting to the Ocean Club isn't very far.
We've also established that the statements are all worthless due to the problems in translation. So it's anyones guess what time the Smith's saw Smithman and what time GM was at the Tapas Bar before running off alone to search for the missing child.
The only definitive times given from people who were wearing watches were Oldfield who said Kate's check was 21:50 and GM who said Kate got up to check at 22:03. I wonder if they corrected that discrepency for Control Risks?
If I can't find something I don't assume it doesn't exist.
like evidence for abduction
Evidence for an abduction may exist. It's just that no-one has produced any yet.Given that abduction obviously seems very unlikely in your view and that there is no evidence of it in your view, how do you account for the fact that the German police seem convinced Madeleine was abducted? Are they crazy? Stupid? Corrupt? Got to be at least one of those innit.
Given that abduction obviously seems very unlikely in your view and that there is no evidence of it in your view, how do you account for the fact that the German police seem convinced Madeleine was abducted? Are they crazy? Stupid? Corrupt? Got to be at least one of those innit.Human error. You forgot human error.
Human error. You forgot human error.Stupidity covered that. So, one human’s error, or a whole bunch of German humans errors? What, specifically is the error? How did they arrive at the error?
Human error. You forgot human error.Are you human?
Evidence for an abduction may exist. It's just that no-one has produced any yet.
Are you human?Or are you Dancer?
Or are you Dancer?Love that song.
Love that song.
Love that song.
Well, the waiter agrees with Russell about what time he arrived back at the table, which was quarter to ten. It took ten minutes for Russell to have his meal back and he had almost finished it when Kate give the alarm. Dianne Webster says in her statement that Kate said 'she's gone Gerry' so Gerry was at the table end of.
Not a patch on Ginger 'Heriberto' Baker letting rip with 'Telephone Line', (or at least something that sounds vaguely similar to it)...What!? He has many talents. Thank you for sharing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDqrzOrqlDY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDqrzOrqlDY)
What!? He has many talents. Thank you for sharing.I don't know where the band name comes from, unless it's after the exiled Catalonia President, Carles Puigdemont.
Unfortunately people have been guessing and worse than that, reaching unfounded conclusions for thirteen years.
I would suggest if the dogs were unable to find a hidden body soon after Madeleine vanished there wasn't one to be found in the environs of Luz.
Similarly, if the victim recovery dog brought over later in the year - and if the dogs brought over by Scotland Yard in 2014 in conjunction with probably thousands of domestic dogs ranging the hills and waste ground on their walkies haven't found a body, there wasn't one to be found.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y&feature=share (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y&feature=share)A feisty food bank frequenter in France might object, but hey, it's Friday night why not?
To: Rob, VS, Davel, Barrier. And myself. If this is not allowed, I do apologise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIZdjT1472Y&feature=shareBrandon Flowers; excellent musician, songwriter, showman. Devout Mormon (a religion made up by a 14 year old, illiterate chancer - fair play to him)
To: Rob, VS, Davel, Barrier. And myself. If this is not allowed, I do apologise.
Brandon Flowers; excellent musician, songwriter, showman. Devout Mormon (a religion made up by a 14 year old, illiterate chancer - fair play to him)Not as good as the Osmonds.
Not as good as the Osmonds.True that sister.
A feisty food bank frequenter in France might object, but hey, it's Friday night why not?
What's wrong with that? Or am I watching a different video.Off topic, but what do you do El?
Sorry, I've been a bit busy at The Food Bank today.
Off topic, but what do you do El?
I collect my weekly rations. And very good they are too.Gotchya.
It's all down to my ghastly British State Pension which The French think is a joke.
Gotchya.
Pensions are actually a joke, I'm in total agreement.
I get a dollop of free electricity as well. This helps since Britain nicked my Winter Fuel Allowance.Wouldn't you return to Blighty? Having said that, having travelled extensively in France and have a bit of lingo, I'm up for setting up there myself.
Wouldn't you return to Blighty? Having said that, having travelled extensively in France and have a bit of lingo, I'm up for setting up there myself.
Or are you Dancer?I'm on my knees looking for the answer ...
OG searched the wasteland years later so they certainly don't agree with that ridiculous statement.
Wouldn't you return to Blighty? Having said that, having travelled extensively in France and have a bit of lingo, I'm up for setting up there myself.
No, I wouldn't. I haven't been anywhere near for fifteen years, and not often in the fifteen years before that.
I miss Scotland a bit sometimes, but I couldn't afford to buy a house there.
PM me if you want any information or advice.
if it is shown that maddie died elsewhere and not in the apartment...what will that do for the credibility of Grime and his dogs. The dogs taht alerted so many times and only to things associated with the McCanns...in an apartment where no one else has diedConversely, if he's proven right, you'd still say it was a one-off and continue to castigate him. The poor sod.
Conversely, if he's proven right, you'd still say it was a one-off and continue to castigate him. The poor sod.
You totally underestimate me....if hes proven right i would congratulate him....but not afat chance in hell of that happening......according to the evidenceYep, the attempted character assassination was out of order. He was just a guy doing his job.
poor sod you say...I partly agree with that
Yep, the attempted character assassination was out of order. He was just a guy doing his job.
Incredibly unreliable? It's not Russell Grant churning out horoscopes.
i have compared what I see as a scattergun approach to the likes of Russel so you are doing better. Any professional must accept criticism and be poreared to answer itSo EVRD dog use is the same as Astrology?
So EVRD dog use is the same as Astrology?
Read the postI did. You compared EVRD use to astrology.
I did. You compared EVRD use to astrology.No I didn't
No I didn'tYeh yer did, kid. And I always knew you would double down one day.
Yeh yer did, kid. And I always knew you would double down one day.I compared that in my opinion Grime had a scattergun approach which reminded me of stage psychics and astrology...
I'm not panicking, I'm ambivalent to mildly interested.
I compared that in my opinion Grime had a scattergun approach which reminded me of stage psychics and astrology...Same. You're suggesting both are fraudulent.
Same. You're suggesting both are fraudulent.I've never suggested Grime was fraudulent....
if it is shown that maddie died elsewhere and not in the apartment...what will that do for the credibility of Grime and his dogs. The dogs taht alerted so many times and only to things associated with the McCanns...in an apartment where no one else has died
I've never suggested Grime was fraudulent....By comparing his approach to that of an astrologer or a stage psychic you are doing exactly that.
Same. You're suggesting both are fraudulent.
By comparing his approach to that of an astrologer or a stage psychic you are doing exactly that.If you read my post above you will understand. Grime is using a reasonable tecnique to hit a target...the astrologer isnt
Unless you're comparing his method in a favourable light, as you believe astrology and stage psychics to be bona fide and genuine.
If you can't see the target...taking s scattergun approach gives s good chance of hitting it...reasonable not fraudulent..of course if theres no target you won't hit itThe inference being that there's no scientific merit behind what he's doing, and he knows it.
If you read my post above you will understand. Grime is using a reasonable tecnique to hit a target...the astrologer isntThat's not what you said and you know it.
That's not what you said and you know it.
You made a direct comparison to EVRD / Grime's area of expertise to nothing more than parlour tricks.
You are now stating your opinion as fact...it isn't..imoI can actually hear the intro to Billie Jean as you clumsily attempt to moonwalk stage left.
I compared that in my opinion Grime had a scattergun approach which reminded me of stage psychics and astrology...
In my opinion Grime was the most reliable and experienced dog trainer and handler in the UK in 2007. Your opinion of him is insulting, uninformed and bordering on libelous.Says the woman who accuses the McCanns of making Madeleine’s last days alive a complete misery through theiir neglect and cruelty.
Says the woman who accuses the McCanns of making Madeleine’s last days alive a complete misery through theiir neglect and cruelty.Didn’t Madeleine say she had her best day ever?
Didn’t Madeleine say she had her best day ever?
Madeleine went sailing for the first time that day. If it was her happiest day that was the reason! There are no photos because Kate and Gerry didn't bother to see their daughter sailing for the first time! Chatting around the pool talking about peados and washing the pyjamas Madeleine went missing in seemed more important!
Maybe take a little pause.
Take time to re-read your post.
Everything I said is true from their statements.
1. The parents didn't go to the beach to see their daughter sailing for the first time.
2. When Madeleine is having the best day ever! Kate is chatting to Russell around the pool and somebody is taking photos of their child and the conversation turns to pedo chat.
3. After that Kate returns to the apartment to WASH ONE ITEM. The pyjamas Madeleine went missing in later that day!
Madeleine went sailing for the first time that day. If it was her happiest day that was the reason! There are no photos because Kate and Gerry didn't bother to see their daughter sailing for the first time! Chatting around the pool talking about peados and washing the pyjamas Madeleine went missing in seemed more important!In an organised setting, parents allow their children to participate in events where they are not present. Trust. The pajamas was Amelie’s and used as an example.
I can actually hear the intro to Billie Jean as you clumsily attempt to moonwalk stage left.Don’t start. My children moonwalk.
In an organised setting, parents allow their children to participate in events where they are not present. Trust. The pajamas was Amelie’s and used as an example.
Says the woman who accuses the McCanns of making Madeleine’s last days alive a complete misery through theiir neglect and cruelty.
What on earth are you talking about? I accused the McCanns of nothing, I simply described aspects of Madeleine's life before she disappeared and how she could have felt. Anything else is your opinion.
"Yes, the child wasn't a parcel, she was a thinking, feeling little girl. If what we're told is all true, she wasn't having a great time. Her sleep was disturbed on Tuesday night because her sister cried. According to her parents there was crying on Wednesday night too. On Thursday night she was deprived of her after tea playtime, being taken straight home at 5:30 and immediately bathed and got ready for bed. It could have felt like a punishment, couldn't it?"
What on earth are you talking about? I accused the McCanns of nothing, I simply described aspects of Madeleine's life before she disappeared and how she could have felt. Anything else is your opinion.You paint such a pretty picture of Madeleine’s last few days don’t you? What on earth can you be implying other than that her misery was all down to her cruel and neglectful parents? Don’t be disingenuous and claim that it is only my opinion, I’m not a fool.
"Yes, the child wasn't a parcel, she was a thinking, feeling little girl. If what we're told is all true, she wasn't having a great time. Her sleep was disturbed on Tuesday night because her sister cried. According to her parents there was crying on Wednesday night too. On Thursday night she was deprived of her after tea playtime, being taken straight home at 5:30 and immediately bathed and got ready for bed. It could have felt like a punishment, couldn't it?"
You paint such a pretty picture of Madeleine’s last few days don’t you? What on earth can you be implying other than that her misery was all down to her cruel and neglectful parents? Don’t be disingenuous and claim that it is only my opinion, I’m not a fool.
I wasn't implying anything about her parents, whatever you choose to suggest. The children didn't cry every night because their parents were 'cruel and neglectful' surely? There's also nothing cruel or neglectful about bathing children and getting them ready for bed. Changing the routine COULD HAVE upset Madeleine is what I said. Please stop making unfounded accusations.
I wasn't implying anything about her parents, whatever you choose to suggest. The children didn't cry every night because their parents were 'cruel and neglectful' surely? There's also nothing cruel or neglectful about bathing children and getting them ready for bed. Changing the routine COULD HAVE upset Madeleine is what I said. Please stop making unfounded accusations.Yes, the child wasn't a parcel, she was a thinking, feeling little girl. If what we're told is all true, she wasn't having a great time. Her sleep was disturbed on Tuesday night because her sister cried. According to her parents there was crying on Wednesday night too. On Thursday night she was deprived of her after tea playtime, being taken straight home at 5:30 and immediately bathed and got ready for bed. It could have felt like a punishment, couldn't it?"
Says the woman who accuses the McCanns of making Madeleine’s last days alive a complete misery through theiir neglect and cruelty.
Didn’t Madeleine say she had her best day ever?
Yes, the child wasn't a parcel, she was a thinking, feeling little girl. If what we're told is all true, she wasn't having a great time. Her sleep was disturbed on Tuesday night because her sister cried. According to her parents there was crying on Wednesday night too. On Thursday night she was deprived of her after tea playtime, being taken straight home at 5:30 and immediately bathed and got ready for bed. It could have felt like a punishment, couldn't it?"
The words you chose speak for themselves.
And - for god's sake be honest. You believe the McCanns neglected Madeleine and through their cruel behaviour put her through hell, and ultimately let to her death.
Madeleine's pyjamas NOT Amelie according to Kate!
3 May 2007
She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Madeleine later disappeared that same day in the same pyjamas according to her parents.
I have answered your accusations, which are all opinion and without foundation, no matter how much text you bold.They absolutely do have foundation and it is absolutely disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Unfortunately people have been guessing and worse than that, reaching unfounded conclusions for thirteen years.
I would suggest if the dogs were unable to find a hidden body soon after Madeleine vanished there wasn't one to be found in the environs of Luz.
Similarly, if the victim recovery dog brought over later in the year - and if the dogs brought over by Scotland Yard in 2014 in conjunction with probably thousands of domestic dogs ranging the hills and waste ground on their walkies haven't found a body, there wasn't one to be found.
I distinctly remember the Portuguese brought their own tracking dogs the day after Maddie disappeared and those dogs traced her scent from the apartment to a nearby supermarket car park, and then it went cold.
Sounds like CB put her in a suitcase or large travel bag, walked to the car park where his car or van wa sparked had simply drove off
It’s the most obvious and logical way he’d have done it
All this rubbish from people saying Maddie was hidden under a bush by the roadside is ludicrous. The people saying it seem to have a deeply disturbed wish that Gerry or Kate murdered Maddie, and it’s utter crap. Despite the horror they’ve had to endure I think these people are somehow jealous of them for some reason. Why would they be so desperate for them to be the murderers? It’s weird.
Not where they searched, obviously. I think the person carrying a child away from 5a (seen by the Smith family) either had access to a vehicle or arranged to meet someone else that did. This is just opinion - based on my belief she died in the apartment and that no body was recovered in PDL.
We've already established that "about 10pm" is quite a wide period and the distance from the Smith sighting to the Ocean Club isn't very far.
We've also established that the statements are all worthless due to the problems in translation. So it's anyones guess what time the Smith's saw Smithman and what time GM was at the Tapas Bar before running off alone to search for the missing child.
The only definitive times given from people who were wearing watches were Oldfield who said Kate's check was 21:50 and GM who said Kate got up to check at 22:03. I wonder if they corrected that discrepency for Control Risks?
And why didn’t the dogs pick up cadaver scent OUTSIDE?
No supermarket car park was involved; that was misinformation by the UK tabloids (again).
Eddie gave two alerts outside the apartment. This would suggest a body being put down in that area rather than moving along a certain route.
The dogs used earlier were not cadaver dogs.
You’re wrong.
Madeleine's pyjamas NOT Amelie according to Kate!I was referring to the pyjamas that was shown on television.
3 May 2007
She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Madeleine later disappeared that same day in the same pyjamas according to her parents.
I distinctly remember the Portuguese brought their own tracking dogs the day after Maddie disappeared and those dogs traced her scent from the apartment to a nearby supermarket car park, and then it went cold.
Sounds like CB put her in a suitcase or large travel bag, walked to the car park where his car or van wa sparked had simply drove off
It’s the most obvious and logical way he’d have done it
All this rubbish from people saying Maddie was hidden under a bush by the roadside is ludicrous. The people saying it seem to have a deeply disturbed wish that Gerry or Kate murdered Maddie, and it’s utter crap. Despite the horror they’ve had to endure I think these people are somehow jealous of them for some reason. Why would they be so desperate for them to be the murderers? It’s weird.
They didn’t use cadaver dogs...FGS
And shall I tell you why in case it hasn’t occurred to you?
No-one walks about streets carrying dead children
Why would they do that?
And don’t come out with rubbish like “the McCanns’” killed their daughter, that’s BS
If any parent DID want to kill their child, or did so accidentally, why hide her body when people are up and about?
Why not hide her in the apartment and then move her body when everyone is asleep in the early hours?
Why not put her body in a bag or suitcase and dump it in the sea next day?
Trouble with you conspirators is that you don’t think rationally.
No alibi in the early hours. Next.
If she was found missing in the early hours when the apartment should be locked with no evidence of anybody passing through the window and the parents have no alibi I think we know who would have been accused!
Here is the route taken by those dogs. They didn't go to a supermarket car park at any point. (Bottom image)GNR dogs traced Madeleine’s scent to the supermarket car park.
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_830_small.jpg)
GNR dogs traced Madeleine’s scent to the supermarket car park.
They didn’t use cadaver dogs...FGS
I appreciate that, John
One moderator in particular forces me to delete my posts; she alters them; sends me several warnings DAILY...and constantly has swipes and digs at me. As a member I feel I should be able to defend myself. I also feel that if someone makes libellous comments they should stop...regardless of them being a moderator.
I don’t post here as much anymore, as Gunit CONSTANTLY goads me, then when I answer back she sends me a warning
I’m sick of it.
Who says? Why do you prefer that report to the one in the official files?Why not? It may just fill the dearth of information in the files. My thinking.
Yes of course I know that. I was responding to your question which was:
"And why didn’t the dogs pick up cadaver scent OUTSIDE? Why did they pick up Maddie’s scent all the way to the supermarket"?
My answer was that Eddie, the cadaver dog, did alert outside... and that the dogs tracking Maddie's scent (earlier in May 2007) were NOT cadaver dogs. Your use of the word "they" in the sentence after "the dogs" implied that the tracker dogs were cadaver dogs.
One cadaver dog was used he alerted inside apartment 5a and just outside it.
Why not? It may just fill the dearth of information in the files. My thinking.
The alert outside is a red flag to seriously question the credibility of the alerts imo. I don't see any way remnant scent...without physical remains...could last 3 months outside...open to the elements
So what do you put it down to? Martin Grime encouraging Eddie to false alert? I think it’s blatantly obvious that if the dogs lack credibility and give false alerts all over the place the pattern of the alerts would be random - but they specifically only involve one family.And I've explained why they only alerted to things McCann. From a scientific point of view I don't see how remnant remnant scent ...without remains...could last 3 months outside with wind and rain..
And I've explained why they only alerted to things McCann. From a scientific point of view I don't see how remnant remnant scent ...without remains...could last 3 months outside with wind and rain..
Who says? Why do you prefer that report to the one in the official files?
I remember some years ago it was pointed out to the forum that the official photograph in the files marking out casa Liliana doesn't. It mistakenly denotes a neighbour's villa as the Murat residence.
04-Processos Vol IV Pages 957 - 958
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Just because it's in the files doesn't necessarily make it so.
Also there is a rather good dog thread on the forum too which shows the actual route the dogs took based on the information given by their handlers (also in the files) and the pictorial record differs from the statements given.
So that pictorial information may well be inaccurate also.
The alert outside is a red flag to seriously question the credibility of the alerts imo. I don't see any way remnant scent...without physical remains...could last 3 months outside...open to the elements
5. RETAINED MATERIALS, material from items (list), Hairs recovered from the fragments of bushes
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Hairs recovered from bushes is evidence. You were saying what is impossible?
I provided the link. search for bushes. here it is
Date: 06-09-07
For court use only:
Rv
Exhibit number
Signed date
Justice of the peace/clerk to Court
Page 1 of 1
Processos Vol X
Page 2660
The Forensic Science Service
Expert's Index of Unused Material
FSS References : 300 655 190/400 932 184
CJS URN
Index compiled by John Robert Lowe BSc Cbiol MIBiol RFP
The following is a list of unused material in the possession of the Forensic Science Services and being managed in this case by the above named expert (note, the material should be considered to be NON - SENSITIVE, unless a specific flag exists to suggest it might be SENSITIVE). The list is provided in accordance with the guidance given in ?Disclosure: Expert?s evidence and unused material ? Guidance Booklet for Experts?.
EXPERT'S USE
Number Description of material
1. CASE NOTES made at the time of the examination of the items: provide details of dates of examinations; details of packaging and integrity of items; records of work performed on the items, who was involved and dates; analytical and test results; details of quality checks
Location: Case Files.
2. DRAFT REPORTS ' electronic and/or hard copy drafts of reports of statements sent out to the Prosecution Team.
Location: Case Files.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS time recording sheets, case costings, delivery notes, invoices, records of enquiries with customers relating to costs, etc.
Location : Case Files.
4. RECORDS of material submitted but not examined, of material examined but relating to suspects not included in reports or statements; of work carried out by others, including the results; of procedures and techniques used during the examinations.
Location: Case Files.
5. RETAINED MATERIALS, material from items (list), Hairs recovered from the fragments of bushes, tapings from the curtains, CDs of photos supplied from Portugal, DVD of scene examination supplied from Portugal, Photographs and CD of LMG + stain on tile 286/2007 CR/L 5.
Location: Case Files.
6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION in the form of maps, plans, photographs, videos relating to the scene of the offence, details of modus operandi, details of related offences.
Location: Case Files
Completed by John Robert Lowe BSc Cbiol MIBiol RFP
Signed (Unsigned copy)
Dated 06-09-2007
So did Lowe collect the hair sample is this location because the dog alerted there?
That would have been evidence collected in the bushes where Eddie alerted. Lowe had nothing to do with collecting evidence in Portugal.
Ok thanks, dogs alerted and hairs found, what are the chances.
Did you ever come across the story that explained the alerts by claiming KM had attended several PMs before the holiday?
The only explanation I recall you discussing was Grime encouraging false alerts (maybe even subconsciously). This makes no sense to me. Why would Grime undermine the dog’s credibility?
I've explained it all before....what do you think of the alert to cuddle cat....the PJ couldn't even be bothered to test it
No, the words of the handlers match the picture I posted. The dogs went to the car park opposite the Tapas entrance, not to the supermarket car park.
All I recall you explaining is your theory that Grime was giving cues. That makes no sense at all.
An alert to Cuddle Cat would suggest that Eddie has detected cadaver odour or blood on the toy. How do you explain it?
I think if there is cadaver scent present the dogs will find it but the problems arise when it isnt and the dogs are called back to places they have shown no interest in....not once but sometimes twice like the car. i think thats when false alerts arise. we know that the dogs were not called back to any other car and were not called back in any other apartment. if the alerts were genuine...then the mCanns would have been arrested. SY do not consider maddie to be dead....so they don't consider the alerts reliable too. as we know cadaver odour takes time to develop...if the alerts are genuine ..Breukner is innocent and abduction and woke and wandered are impossible...that only leaves the McCanns.
therefore if the alerts are genuine...no abduction...no woke and wandered...its a simple as that
I think it's obvious that Eddie has detected what he is trained to detect before he is "called back" to the car. I don't claim to be an expert but I do have four dogs including two lurchers. I know when they have detected rabbit odour!! And your explanation fails miserably to explain why Eddie only "false" alerts at items connected to the one family.
Don't the handlers mention turning left on exiting the lane and crossing the road as far as the lampost before turning back?
I dont think eddie alerted to cuddle cat...have you watched the video
There was blood in the car...on the key ring. If eddie detected as you think...why doesnt grime say ...in my opinion the dog detected cadaver odour. Grime is absolutely free to voice his opinion. If the alerts are relaible then why havent the mcCanns been arrested.....
My explanation is a perfect explanation for the alerts. I tried to explain to you about eddies reaction to blood that hadnt dried in situ and you couldnt understand that so it doesnt surprise me you dont find my explanation possible
No not recently.Was it Keela?Ah just realised what you're insinuating.
I did understand your point about Eddie's alert to blood. I'm just not convinced by your explanation regarding all the alerts.
All I recall you explaining is your theory that Grime was giving cues. That makes no sense at all.
An alert to Cuddle Cat would suggest that Eddie has detected cadaver odour or blood on the toy. How do you explain it?
It wasn't blood.
"The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened separately."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
There was blood in the car...on the key ring. If eddie detected as you think...why doesnt grime say ...in my opinion the dog detected cadaver odour. Grime is absolutely free to voice his opinion. If the alerts are relaible then why havent the mcCanns been arrested.....
Because DNA analysis of human cellular material found in some of the places the dogs alerted was "inconclusive". However as you well know - science moves forward at quite a pace.
Did you ever come across the story that explained the alerts by claiming KM had attended several PMs before the holiday?
The only explanation I recall you discussing was Grime encouraging false alerts (maybe even subconsciously). This makes no sense to me. Why would Grime undermine the dog’s credibility?
5. RETAINED MATERIALS, material from items (list), Hairs recovered from the fragments of bushesHas it been considered that whoever took Madeleine may have been hiding in the bushes prior to her disappearance?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
Hairs recovered from bushes is evidence. You were saying what is impossible?
No, but if you have the quote...
The point is they didn't go to the supermarket car park, neither did they follow the route Anthro posted.
I will get it in due course, absolutely no rush, it is in the files and it was exhaustively discussed on this forum :)
Didnt Grime make his staement before the results were returned. If Grime was sure about his dogs ..he could have said....Imo the alert was to cadaver odour....he didnt
What he was sure of was the need for forensic evidence to back up the alerts.
The DNA analysis of the collected human cellular material was "inconclusive".
No rush; it places the dogs even further away from the supermarket anyway.
Yes I have come across that myth. And NO Kate never made any such claim.
The first time it appeared in print emanated from a pal of Amaral's who wrote as follows ...
From Maddie 129:
There are allegations the dogs detected cadaver odors on Kate's jeans and Cuddlecat.
The odor on jeans is justified by Kate by saying she was in contact with six cadavers before she left her 2 day per week job in a general clinic in Leicester.
Maddie 129 … de Hernâni Carvalho, Luís Maia … Edição/reimpressão: 2007 … Launched in Portugal November 9th 2007 … Editor: Prime Books … ISBN: 9789898028617
The next rendition of the lie we owe to none other than that bastion of reliability, Paolo Cristovao who wrote ...
From Estrela de Madeleine:
On the tv monitor, Eddie can be seen sniffing over Kate's clothing and marking that it had been in contact with a cadaver. The reactions of the dogs in the vehicle that had been used by Madeleine's parents can also be seen.
At the medical center where I work, in England, before we came on holidays, people died whom I had been in contact with... you must be forgetting that I am a doctor...
- Yes you are - João Tavares replies - and the death rate at the medical center where you work twice a week is extremely high...
- It's true - the arguida replies.
A Estrela de Madeleine … de Paulo Pereira Cristóvão … Edição/reimpressão: 2008
Launched in Portugal March 19th 2008 …Páginas: 160 …
Editor: Editorial Presença … ISBN: 9789722338905 … Coleção: Grandes Narrativas
Has it been considered that whoever took Madeleine may have been hiding in the bushes prior to her disappearance?
Can you put that in more context. I don't know who they are nor how you're certain they are lying. However I have never seen anything by KM which offers up that explanation for the alerts.
he could have given his opinion...which he did. His opinion wasnt that the dog alerted to cadaver odour
I'm actually quite interested in locating the discussion we had about the direction the dogs took when exiting the lane because it was really quite a good and informative one and I am endeavouring to find it.
I did find a quote from you saying that at one time you thought the dogs had 'turned left'.
Anyway you are wrong that a left turn takes the dogs further away. I just worded my post badly. Once they had headed left and up ... they turned back and went down hill to the car park ... one crossing the road again towards the tapas. Which would bring it closer to the supermarket.
Anyway ... enough of dogs for tonight.
One thing which is absolutely certain is that Kate McCann did not say anything about being in contact with dead bodies at her work. We have two penny dreadful authors to thank for that lie.
His opinion certainly wasn't that the dogs gave false alerts.
His opinion was that it was possible the dog was alerting to cadaver odour which admits its possible it wasnt...which is a false alert
Sorry but I don’t understand your sentence. I think it’s the word “which” that doesn’t help convey what you are meaning. I don’t believe MG thought they were false alerts. I’ve heard a report on a phone conversation between him and a reporter in which he gives his opinion.
His opinion was that it was possible the dog was alerting to cadaver odour which admits its possible it wasnt...which is a false alert
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. 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. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
FALSE ALERTS
'False' positives are always a possibility; to date Eddie has not so indicated
operationally or in training. 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. Similarly the
dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal.
My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler
cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in bahaviour.
This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops
handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and
investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour
other than to direct the search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
If Eddie had been given a 'free search' he would have trotted around the bedroom and left, it was because Grime called him back a few times that he finally alerted, to what who knows, the smell of dirty washing that had been in the wardrobe maybe.
no evidential reliability or value
You are misunderstanding MG. You should have made a massive font at “This procedure also stops handler cueing”Davel thinks the used of EVRD's is akin to Derek Acorah walking around an abandoned castle in the dark talking to spirits. So any further discussion with someone with such a viewpoint is rendered useless.
Davel thinks the used of EVRD's is akin to Derek Acorah walking around an abandoned castle in the dark talking to spirits. So any further discussion with someone with such a viewpoint is rendered useless.
If Eddie had been given a 'free search' he would have trotted around the bedroom and left, it was because Grime called him back a few times that he finally alerted, to what who knows, the smell of dirty washing that had been in the wardrobe maybe.
You are misunderstanding MG. You should have made a massive font at “This procedure also stops handler cueing”
If that's what you think my viewpoint is any further discussion with you is useless ...you are quite wrongYou said as much yesterday. It's a 'scattergun' approach apparently and you're bound to get lucky occasionally.
You said as much yesterday. It's a 'scattergun' approach apparently and you're bound to get lucky occasionally.
The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
no evidential reliability or value
They do it subconsciously he knew it was the McCann's apartment, Eddie wasn't bothered with the bedroom Grime called him back.
But yet it is still stuff that could be used...If backed up with something else it seems it would be evidence
Also, have value so it wasn't nothing as you try and make out
It's the stuff that backs it up that is the evidence...the alert itself has no value
Ye, so it isn't nothing... like you try to make out it would have value.
No it doesn't...it's the evidence found that has value
then backed up with what the dogs alerted to.
Whatever..I'm not really bothered it's of no importance
They do it subconsciously he knew it was the McCann's apartment, Eddie wasn't bothered with the bedroom Grime called him back.
No, but do stop saying it was useless when it wasn't D
No, but do stop saying it was useless when it wasn't D
I'm allowed to express my opinions...the alerts in this case we're useless...it's not your position to tell me what I can and cannot post
I'm not ...but bear in mind so an I
I'll post what I like on the dog thread or any thread. I made a post on Twitter re the dogs yesterday....and Jim Gamble liked it....I m obviously speaking sense...in this case the alerts were useless. I have a lot more to say but the free speech given to others stops me...so much for free speech
and Jim Gamble liked it....Wait, what? The Jim Gamble? DUDE!
&%%6
Did they find anything?
Human cellular material under the floor tiles - but you know that already!
Human cellular material under the floor tiles - but you know that already!So, let's recap;
So, let's recap;And this tells us that...............................................................................(fill in the blanks).
- EVRD dogs were deployed.
- EVRD dogs alerted in a specific spot (with any residue being invisible to the human eye)
- Upon closer examination human cellular material was found.
-Derek Acorah walked in and was 'possessed' by a malevolent spirit called Sergio
Thanks. Was this before or after her book?
Despite all the evidence to the contrary, and in denial of the facts, the Jersey media still insist on referring to the coconut myth. Evidence that the item concerned was never conclusively identified as a coconut and indeed, was even found to contain collagen, (only found in mammals) has been ignored. The evidence of a respected Professor who stated that the bones found had been burnt and buried whilst fresh and fleshed has been totally ignored. Even a few weeks ago a media source in Jersey was asking me about this nonsense. Lenny Harper
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2017/06/statement-of-former-deputy-chief-police.html
The dogs went no further down the street than the Tapas entrance. It was another 100m to the Baptisa;
The dog went into the path on the left, heading toward the main road (Francisco Gentil Martins). Once there, he crossed the street and close to block 6’s wall, turned right, heading toward the contiguous parking area, more particularly toward a light post where he sniffed the ground. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the resort’s access zone, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, but finally lost interest in the search, i.e lost the scent.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm
Did it point to anyone in particular?It didn't point directly at Madeleine.
It didn't point directly at Madeleine.
Thank you, I was aware of that in the context that Isobel Duarte the McCann lawyer raised the issue in 2012.
Snip
Shortly after Madeleine was taken from Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz, five years ago this Thursday, a sniffer dog picked up her scent at a nearby car park.
Mrs Duarte said: “This was a significant moment at a critical time, yet there is very little about it in the police files. There doesn’t appear to have been any forensic work at the spot in the car park identified by the dog. More work should have been done.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/317111/Madeleine-McCann-The-lost-clues
I am really interested in finding the thread where that situation was discussed in some depth by members. I remember it as being interesting and informative.
Lenny Harper was sacked as I understand....making unsubstantiated claims...
More likely for NOT being a pathetic YES man.
Did it point to anyone in particular?
What did Duarte expect? Forensic operatives crawling around taking samples from a lamp post in a car park?
Didn't they crawl around in gardens ~ apartments ~ villas ~ floor spaces ~ cess pits ~ cars ~ garages and gymnasium ~ three months after the event to achieve a big fat zero for their efforts.
Don't you think it might have been worthwhile to put in a little more effort to finding out why ~ not months after the event, but mere days ~ the search dogs one after the other came to an abrupt halt in mid search in of all places ~ a car park.
What might one find in a car park, gee whiz! ... cars.
So a skip and a jump away from the scene of an abduction we have dogs losing a trail in a car park. What was to prevent a guy like Tannerman from walking around block six and hopping into a vehicle parked at that spot?
I don't think they did any of that with cotton buds in their hands.
All of MM’s DNA markers were present on swab 3a.... but then so was DNA from at least two other contributors.. Is it possible we can say MMs DNA was present in the sample? The FSS said the simple answer would be yes but added that this simple conclusion wasn’t possible for them to assert. They described the result as “inconclusive”.
Did either Eddie or Keela alert at the spot where sample swab 3A was lifted from?
Both as I understand it. Grime used Keela's alert to suggest a second tile was removed as far as I remember and without double checking.
Sorry but I don’t understand your sentence. I think it’s the word “which” that doesn’t help convey what you are meaning. I don’t believe MG thought they were false alerts. I’ve heard a report on a phone conversation between him and a reporter in which he gives his opinion.
Both as I understand it. Grime used Keela's alert to suggest a second tile was removed as far as I remember and without double checking.
Him knowing it was their apartment does not explain why he would (subconsciously) encourage a false alert. That makes no sense. Martin Grime knows that an alert in its own is not evidence. What we see happening in this case is Eddie’s alert in 5A providing a signpost to where Keela might be able to find traces of blood. This is exactly how it panned out. Forensic scientists collected human cellular material from under the tiles in the area where both dogs alerted. The DNA analysis found the human cellular material in swab 3a could have belonged to MM but the result was “inconclusive” because there was more than one contributor and the FSS was unable to separate these out. Dr Perlin however has offered his services.
Grime knew it was the McCann's apartment, that if there was going to be evidence it would likely to be in 5a and so he would have been anxious that the dogs did a more thorough search, this could have been picked up by the dog especially when called back a few times as if to say 'look again and make sure' Eddie wasn't at all bothered with the bedroom, now bearing in mind Grime said the dog could smell through concrete, I'm sure if there had been a scent he would have found it on his first search.
How can there be two contributors to a drop of blood?
Try listening to the one marked British sniffer dogs
https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/clips
Try listening to the one marked British sniffer dogs...is not a cite but i can help you out with this one.
Saunokonoko confirms he didnt speak to Grime....but had an exchange of emails...so taht cannot be the source
I would say that The Tiler cut himself when laying the tiles.How many years ago would that have been?
How many years ago would that have been?
How many years ago would that have been?
No idea. But when the Appartment was first Tiled. It's the only way in which blood could get underneath a Tile stuck on grout.
That’s not correct. Check out forensic science research articles.
That’s not correct. Check out forensic science research articles.
My turn to guess now. Was it the blood deposited by the police who lifted the tiles to be taken to the lab for testing?
My turn to guess now. Was it the blood deposited by the police who lifted the tiles to be taken to the lab for testing?
You do it. I don't care enough. It wasn't proven to have been Madeleine's blood anyway.
I've done it already!
Let Dr Perlin have the data... you never know he might identify the German sex offender's DNA as one of the contributors.
I very much doubt it. And I don't think they've got enough to be messing about with it.
I doubt it too but you never know... it would confirm an abduction anyway! Dr Perlin reckons he can reach a conclusive analysis of the DNA data in two weeks. There's nothing to lose in taking him up on this offer.
I doubt it too but you never know... it would confirm an abduction anyway! Dr Perlin reckons he can reach a conclusive analysis of the DNA data in two weeks. There's nothing to lose in taking him up on this offer.Apart from how much cash? With no guarantee of success?
All of MM’s DNA markers were present on swab 3a.... but then so was DNA from at least two other contributors.. Is it possible we can say MMs DNA was present in the sample? The FSS said the simple answer would be yes but added that this simple conclusion wasn’t possible for them to assert. They described the result as “inconclusive”.
To me, that phrasing makes it sound as if her full forensic profile was found on the swab, which isn't the case.
An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.
There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline MCCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm
As I've posted before, in one of Amaral's numerous interviews, he was asked how many components were found. He said 5 (although I have no idea where he got that information from and I've never found anything in the files to substantiate the quantity). I'd be very surprised if any one of us here doesn't have as many in common with her.
And there were none found on 3b (they use one wet swab and one dry one).
Its obvious to me they were asked the direct question.....could it be maddies dna. Its ashame they werent asked the question could it be family member...that would really have put the result in context
Tell it to the Portuguese. Scotland Yard and the German police have both received knock backs from the Portuguese for requests for access to DNA samples. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8433555/Portuguese-police-blast-Madeleine-McCann-officers-Germany-arrogant.html
Maybe Dr Perlin will have better luck.
SY have confirmed in a FOI request that they still have the DNA data for analysis. So they can share it with Dr Perlin as part of their investigation.
I doubt it too but you never know... it would confirm an abduction anyway! Dr Perlin reckons he can reach a conclusive analysis of the DNA data in two weeks. There's nothing to lose in taking him up on this offer.
SY have confirmed in a FOI request that they still have the DNA data for analysis. So they can share it with Dr Perlin as part of their investigation.
if they have breukners DNA they may already have eliminated him from the dna sample...sorry to burst your bubble
I haven't seen one shred of evidence that he set foot in 5A. So you're not bursting anything!
I doubt it too but you never know... it would confirm an abduction anyway! Dr Perlin reckons he can reach a conclusive analysis of the DNA data in two weeks. There's nothing to lose in taking him up on this offer.
they have his dna...so perlin wont be any help to show he has...just ponting out the obvious
He could see if it matched thebloodhuman cellular material on swab 3A.
He could see if it matched thebloodhuman cellular material on swab 3A.
No supporter wants that as they are running scared. None of them believe the Germans DNA will be inside apartment 5A or they would be supporting new tests.
No supporter wants that as they are running scared. None of them believe the Germans DNA will be inside apartment 5A or they would be supporting new tests.
if they have breukners DNA they may already have eliminated him from the dna sample...sorry to burst your bubble
Why was there nothing on swab 3b?
A conclusive analysis of what? His system is a probabilistic black box.
New tests? From 5a, when it was rented out 4 times after she disappeared and however many people have occupied it since?
No... new analysis on the DNA data!
Apart from how much cash?
He's offered to do it for free.... Next excuse?
as ive said...they could rule Breukners DNA out without perlin
Neither Eddie nor Keela alerted where Swabs 3A & 3B were lifted from. What evidential value would they hold for the investigators as DNA can be found anywhere & everywhere?
It may help you to read the following scientific article to understand that the more contributors there are to a sample the lower the probability of a match (notwithstanding the sample was degraded in certain sections)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1556-4029.14204
Neither Eddie nor Keela alerted where Swabs 3A & 3B were lifted from.
I've seen that link - but thank you. You do realise that Dr Perlin is one of the authors of that journal article don't you?
Yes they did!!
Eddie....
"The EVRD alerted in the:
Rear bedroom of the apartment in the immediate right hand corner by
the door.
Living room, behind sofa.
Veranda outside parent's bedroom.
Garden area directly under veranda.
My observation of the dog's behaviour in this instance was that the dog's
behaviour changed immediately upon opening the front door to the apartment.
He will normally remain in the sit position until released and tasked to search.
On this occasion he broke the stay and entered the apartment with an above
average interest. His behaviour was such that I believed him to be 'in scent'
and I therefore allowed him to free search without direction to allow him to
identify the source of his interest. He did so alerting in the rear bedroom.
I released him from this and tasked him to continue to search. He did so
alerting in an area to the rear of the sofa in the lounge."
Keela.... (in the same area behind the sofa)
"After the recovery of the four tiles and the skirting board the dog specialised in the detection of traces of human blood was put into the area from where the tiles had been recovered, the English police officer who coordinated the movement of the dog, Martin Grime, having informed the undersigned that they should proceed with the recovery of another piece of tile that was close to the area from where the tile identified as number 1 had been lifted, that terminating the recovery of the tiles signalled by the dog. As requested the undersigned performed the lifting of and the recovery of the piece of tile indicated."
Yes, I do. Maybe it will help you understand his acceptance of his own software's limitations.
Please see the pic below which shows where swabs 3a & 3b were taken from. As previously requested, would you supply the link to the section in the dogs video where either dog alerts to that spot.
That area is behind the sofa. Both dogs alerted behind the sofa....... read the report it is clear that the specific tiles lifted were in the areas where Keela alerted.... The forensic scientists use the dog alerts to examine certain areas.... do you honestly believe they decided to lift random tiles in other areas and just happened to find human cellular material that also happened to show "low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
Swab 3a was taken from the corner, not where Keela or Keela alerted behind the sofa. It is marked on the PJ photograph.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3225
Processos Vol XII
Pages 3224 - 3225 (in English)
Delivery Guide 286 A - 2007
Delivery Guide of Recovered Evidences at the Crime Scene
In order to carry out the determined by the 4th Brigade of the PJ Criminal Investigation Department, concerning to process number 201/07 Galgs, between 15.00 of August 4th 2007 and 06.30 of August 5th 2007, were recovered the following evidences in the living room of the apartment 5 A. Ocean Club villas, Praia da Luz, Lagos, Portugal, where is possible may had occurred a crime of homicide, by the Crime Scene Investigators Fernando Jose da Silva Viegas and Bruno Jorge Possidonio Mendes Atunes:
1A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
1B. Stain on the floor recovered with swab, with distilled water.
2A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
2B. Stain on the floor recovered with a swab, with distilled water.
3A. Stain on the floor recovered with a dry swab.
3B. Stain on the floor recovered with a swab, with distilled water..........
If neither dog alerted to that spot, meaning that there was no blood or cadaver odour in that corner, then what bearing would Perlin's DNA data re-analysis of an unidentified body fluid have on an investigation into potential death?
He's offered to do it for free.... Next excuse?Do you have a cite?
That photo isn't in your link as far as I can see. Nothing you've posted from the PJ files contradicts what I am saying, nor says anything about swab 3a coming from the corner. Swab 3A was taken from under the removed floor tiles. The dog alerts were used to pinpoint the locations where material of interest can be found i.e. under the floor tiles behind the sofa where both dogs alerted. Here's the photo from the files:
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3200_small.jpg)
That photo isn't in your link as far as I can see. Nothing you've posted from the PJ files contradicts what I am saying, nor says anything about swab 3a coming from the corner. Swab 3A was taken from under the removed floor tiles. The dog alerts were used to pinpoint the locations where material of interest can be found i.e. under the floor tiles behind the sofa where both dogs alerted. Here's the photo from the files:
(https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3200_small.jpg)
He's offered to do it for free.... Next excuse?
Are you really telling me you haven't read the files where you will find it written in words of one syllable exactly whose blood it is that was found under the tiles?
Do you have a cite?
It was from an online petition.
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-maddie-demand-scotland-yard-to-hand-over-crucial-dna-evidence-to-leading-expert-dr-perlin
"In a recent Podcast series by Mark Saunokonoko and 9news.com.au, the journalist questions all of the evidence in the case and interviews Dr Mark Perlin himself.
He told Nine’s podcast Maddie: “If a lab can produce informative data, even if it is complex and mixed, but they can't interpret it then you can have tremendous injustice."
You can listen to that episode HERE: https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/the-dna (it may give you a new view on why the retesting of this DNA evidence is crucial.)
So far all results have been found to be INCONCLUSIVE, but as this case is now over 12 years old, DNA technology has advanced to a point where Dr Perlin's method 'TrueAllele®' could uncover the truth.
"When science fails, crimes go unsolved or innocents are punished. Crime labs routinely misinterpret their DNA data, reporting wrong match statistics or nothing at all. TrueAllele® computing can accurately recover this lost DNA evidence."
Working as an expert witness and whose technology is over-turning, or ensuring convictions all over the world, Dr Perlin has offered to test this evidence completely FREE.
However the UK police force and Operation Grange has yet to accept Dr Perlin's gracious Pro bono offer. Initially set-up by Theresa May (now the UK Prime Minister) to discover the truth behind her disappearance, the Operation has cost the UK taxpayer well over £10million.
In an effort to discover the truth for both Kate & Gerry Mccann, as well as the public, we ask for your signatures to get this noticed by the people in charge of the official investigation.
If nothing can be determined or proven, we've lost nothing.
However, if new evidence can be recovered, it could provide a much needed breakthrough in the case that's captured the interest of the general public. "
It's the initial scan that's free...it's free to all his clients
Yes I understand that - but where have you seen that is all he is offering in this case, and that he states he's not offering the complete analysis pro bono?
Because he says what he will offer takes two weeks...which is what the free scan takes
He actually says he is confident of a conclusive result in two weeks.
Is that him or MS saying that
He actually says he is confident of a conclusive result in two weeks.
this is from their website..
Send us your lab's "inconclusive" DNA data files. Our free TrueAllele screening will quickly let you Know the Answer®. Who left their DNA on each evidence item? And who didn't? Is there DNA from an unknown person? Did your guy do it?
so is their service free to everyone.....this looks like what hes offerring in this case
It was from an online petition.Gosh, it wasn’t a very successful petition. I wonder why not? Do you have a more robust cite, ie one from Dr Perlin himself perhaps offering his services for free? Thanks in advance.
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-maddie-demand-scotland-yard-to-hand-over-crucial-dna-evidence-to-leading-expert-dr-perlin
"In a recent Podcast series by Mark Saunokonoko and 9news.com.au, the journalist questions all of the evidence in the case and interviews Dr Mark Perlin himself.
He told Nine’s podcast Maddie: “If a lab can produce informative data, even if it is complex and mixed, but they can't interpret it then you can have tremendous injustice."
You can listen to that episode HERE: https://omny.fm/shows/maddie/the-dna (it may give you a new view on why the retesting of this DNA evidence is crucial.)
So far all results have been found to be INCONCLUSIVE, but as this case is now over 12 years old, DNA technology has advanced to a point where Dr Perlin's method 'TrueAllele®' could uncover the truth.
"When science fails, crimes go unsolved or innocents are punished. Crime labs routinely misinterpret their DNA data, reporting wrong match statistics or nothing at all. TrueAllele® computing can accurately recover this lost DNA evidence."
Working as an expert witness and whose technology is over-turning, or ensuring convictions all over the world, Dr Perlin has offered to test this evidence completely FREE.
However the UK police force and Operation Grange has yet to accept Dr Perlin's gracious Pro bono offer. Initially set-up by Theresa May (now the UK Prime Minister) to discover the truth behind her disappearance, the Operation has cost the UK taxpayer well over £10million.
In an effort to discover the truth for both Kate & Gerry Mccann, as well as the public, we ask for your signatures to get this noticed by the people in charge of the official investigation.
If nothing can be determined or proven, we've lost nothing.
However, if new evidence can be recovered, it could provide a much needed breakthrough in the case that's captured the interest of the general public. "
So he claims he can find out "who left their DNA on each evidence item" pro bono.Let’s put it to the test. Anyone got some DNA they want testing for free? Just bung it in a jiffy and send it to Dr P!
Let’s put it to the test. Anyone got some DNA they want testing for free? Just bung it in a jiffy and send it to Dr P!
His methods are tested in peer reviewed forensic science journals.
Good one. Probably best the stay there.
Perlin offers the initial scan which takes two weeks for free....As I understand from his website ...he offers this free to every client. If you want real evidence that can be used in court then theres a charge ..30 to 40 K as I understand.
So are Perlins claims and offer motivated by money.
I think it's "probably best" to take up an offer of a conclusive analysis.
MM is missing.
A cadaver dog alerted in the apartment where she was staying.
A blood dog alerted to areas where human cellular material was subsequently collected.
Surely you want to know if the material contains MM's DNA?
You don't know that .....but then again a drop in the ocean to what they have spent on what seems like nothing.
They are not exactly working with the germans are they
His methods are tested in peer reviewed forensic science journals.So what?
It didn't.
So what?
You can't say that with that degree of certainty. The FSS said it was "inconclusive". All of MM's DNA markers were present in the sample on swab 3a - but there was DNA from at least two contributors.
"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
As do half of The Western World. Or did you not know that?
So no need to attempt to scoff at them until your critique of his methods are published in forensic science journals.Perhaps I could have a cite for me scoffing at his methods? Thanks in advance.
So the FSS say the result was "inconclusive" but you know differently?
You can't say that with that degree of certainty. The FSS said it was "inconclusive". All of MM's DNA markers were present in the sample on swab 3a - but there was DNA from at least two contributors.
"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
As do half of The Western World. Or did you not know that?
Half the western world do not have ALL of the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.IMO you might share 1 0r 2 alleles with your neighbour but there are so many alleles to pick from.
You seem to be still reading it as if her entire profile was in it. It wasn't though, there were only a few confirmed components.Have you got a cite for that please, in relation to swab 3a?
Half the western world do not have ALL of the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
IMO you might share 1 0r 2 alleles with your neighbour but there are so many alleles to pick from.
Half the western world do not have ALL of the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann.
More than that. 5-6 alleles in common is very frequent even between strangers. Have a look at the DNA files and compare them with her profile.
What I've found to be rarer, checking through various random DNA profiles on the web, is more than 1-2 markers in common.
More than that. 5-6 alleles in common is very frequent even between strangers. Have a look at the DNA files and compare them with her profile.
What I've found to be rarer, checking through various random DNA profiles on the web, is more than 1-2 markers in common.
No one seems to have said that.
"An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann."
I.e., the few alleles found corresponded with those in her profile.
Even Amaral lost interest in the flat.
Portuguese police have launched searches for Madeleine McCann’s body on the Algarve, according to Portuguese media reports.
The searches are said to have been conducted in wells in Vila do Bispo, a 20 minute drive west of Praia da Luz where the youngster vanished in May 2007.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-madeleine-mccann-police-searching-22337800.amp
Ping Vila do Bispo July 2007
Thanks, and what is the number of corresponding alleles in swab 3a? PS - I know there was more than one contributor so that further makes more matches a higher probability.... but how many alleles matched? We know one swab from the hire car matched 15 - but again more than one contributor. I'm interested to know how many matches in swab 3a. Thanks again.
The actual number would have been useful. Is it only the summary that was made public rather than the actual result in numbers?
Portuguese police have launched searches for Madeleine McCann’s body on the Algarve, according to Portuguese media reports.
The searches are said to have been conducted in wells in Vila do Bispo, a 20 minute drive west of Praia da Luz where the youngster vanished in May 2007.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-madeleine-mccann-police-searching-22337800.amp
Ping Vila do Bispo July 2007
CaranaI'm not sure what you mean, Sadie. I'm not a geneticist, sorry.
I think that you are our DNA expert.
Could a false specific DNA be labority manufactured? ... please
Something else to bear in mind ... if Eddie alerts but Keela doesn’t (for example next to the bedroom cupboard) then imo we can say with around 95% certainty that the alert is to cadaver odour and not blood. Wasn’t it Redwood who said something along the lines of “MM might possibly not have been alive when she left the apartment”? There’s nothing apart from Eddie’s alert where Keela didn’t to make him assert that , imo.Could still be blood but blood that didn't dry in situ...check Grimes profile in the files.
How can blood not be dried in situ at a crime scene months later?
Of course died in the apartment theory is based on dog alerts. They didn't bring expensive specialised British dogs over for nothing!
Could still be blood but blood that didn't dry in situ...check Grimes profile in the files.
The possibility that Maddie may have died in the apartment does not rely on any dog alert.
Reasonable first point Dave.... I'll work on that one...
What else would make Redwood reportedly make a point, with clever wording, of saying that she possibly may not have been alive before she left the apartment.... So he's not just saying she's possibly dead (which is a no brainer, imo). Afaik there is no other evidence to suggest MM died in the apartment - only Eddie's alert.
Also despite the smears surrounding Eddie's work in the awful hell hole at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey it's worth remembering some context (link further down):
In February 2008 a police investigation started on site at the home, this investigation was brought about after allegations of the abuse, and murder of children at the home. Eddie, the dog widely regarded as the best in the world, and who had also, the year previous worked on the Madeleine McCann case, was brought in with his trainer, Martin Grime. Below is a link, filmed by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, present with him at the time was former Deputy Chief Police Officer Mr. Lenny Harper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48)
As you will hear from the start of the video, Mr Harper was in no way confident as to Eddie's abilities, not least of all because of the bad press Eddie had received at the hands of pro McCann claims after his findings in 2007. That opinion was soon to change, as you can see by the report he made to accompany the video below, take note at some of the amazing tests that Eddie passed with flying colours Mr Harper describes at the start of his report. JAR/6 is a fragment of a child's skull:
Taken from the following link:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html (http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html)
"00.00.0 Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes (sic)) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video. To get back to the start of the video and my initial doubts, after a few days outside I had at least gained a grudging respect for Martin’s hard work and dedication.
Furthermore I've read reports that the famous piece of "coconut shell" was later found at a University lab to contain collagen (not found in coconut shells!!)... and as the builders from the site suspected they had likely found human bones (though not of HDLG inmates/victims)... So Eddie's alerts were spot on imo....
Here's a Police summary:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hY8Vy3va_gk/VxVNQVWMf2I/AAAAAAAAAHE/_02F4dRZcB840ROnKikkwz_r--qMra-2wCLcB/s1600/blog%2Banthropolgist.jpg)
And here's a few lab results from many more:
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
You obviously havent read the section re "blood dried in situ" in Grime's profile in the files. if you are going to comment on the dogs you should read everything Grime has said. It seems they did bring the dogs over for nothing because nothing of any use was found.
You talk nonsense! The dogs find blood SCENT. Any blood there they would alert to it!
Reasonable first point Dave.... I'll work on that one...
What else would make Redwood reportedly make a point, with clever wording, of saying that she possibly may not have been alive before she left the apartment.... So he's not just saying she's possibly dead (which is a no brainer, imo). Afaik there is no other evidence to suggest MM died in the apartment - only Eddie's alert.
Also despite the smears surrounding Eddie's work in the awful hell hole at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey it's worth remembering some context (link further down):
In February 2008 a police investigation started on site at the home, this investigation was brought about after allegations of the abuse, and murder of children at the home. Eddie, the dog widely regarded as the best in the world, and who had also, the year previous worked on the Madeleine McCann case, was brought in with his trainer, Martin Grime. Below is a link, filmed by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, present with him at the time was former Deputy Chief Police Officer Mr. Lenny Harper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48)
As you will hear from the start of the video, Mr Harper was in no way confident as to Eddie's abilities, not least of all because of the bad press Eddie had received at the hands of pro McCann claims after his findings in 2007. That opinion was soon to change, as you can see by the report he made to accompany the video below, take note at some of the amazing tests that Eddie passed with flying colours Mr Harper describes at the start of his report. JAR/6 is a fragment of a child's skull:
Taken from the following link:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html (http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html)
"00.00.0 Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes (sic)) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video. To get back to the start of the video and my initial doubts, after a few days outside I had at least gained a grudging respect for Martin’s hard work and dedication.
Furthermore I've read reports that the famous piece of "coconut shell" was later found at a University lab to contain collagen (not found in coconut shells!!)... and as the builders from the site suspected they had likely found human bones (though not of HDLG inmates/victims)... So Eddie's alerts were spot on imo....
Here's a Police summary:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hY8Vy3va_gk/VxVNQVWMf2I/AAAAAAAAAHE/_02F4dRZcB840ROnKikkwz_r--qMra-2wCLcB/s1600/blog%2Banthropolgist.jpg)
And here's a few lab results from many more:
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
Blood will be in situ at a crime scene months later. Where do you think it's gonna be?You are showing your ignorance
I'm not sure what you mean, Sadie. I'm not a geneticist, sorry.
Thank you Carana
I just have a feeling that something is not right and that a fully decomposed young girls body will be found in a well in PT surrounded by DNA that is manufactured to match Madeleines.
If I am right in who I suspect, both individual and organisations, they are from an ancient dynasty of bloodbrothers. They stand to lose generations of mega wealth producing moneys from Trafficking, blackmail possibly, illicit sex, drug growing, manufacturing and distribution. They want Madeleine to be believed dead.
It just seems to me that "Something is rotten in the State of Denmark" re the original PJ and re the German accusations against Christian Bruckner, evil man tho he is.
IMO, the fact that SY do not seem to be endorsing German findings puts a big question mark in my mind.
Why are SY not endorsing the findings ? Why ?
Reasonable first point Dave.... I'll work on that one...I would say Redwood would have to keep his options open, either dead or alive, for if he just gave "alive" people would be asking "how do you know that?". Under the protocols of "Crimestoppers", the information given has to remain confidential so even if he knows he can't let on, but they do, by making silly comments like she possibly may not have been alive before she left the apartment.
What else would make Redwood reportedly make a point, with clever wording, of saying that she possibly may not have been alive before she left the apartment.... So he's not just saying she's possibly dead (which is a no brainer, imo). Afaik there is no other evidence to suggest MM died in the apartment - only Eddie's alert.
... snip ...
maddie disappeared from the apartment....she may have been abducted....no evidence neede to support that statement
maddie dissapeared...she may hve died in the aprtment...no evidence needed yto support taht statemnet.
The anthroplogist was wrong...what she thought was a skull fragment was a coconut.
Just about everything youve quoted says possibly human.
Lenny Harper ..as I recall...resigned before he was sacked. jersey was a debacle. I don't beleive eddie was ..the best dog in the world...it's all bull
Remind me ... how many murder victims did they find at Haute de la Garenne ?
That's not the point is it. Eddie alerted to human remains.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hY8Vy3va_gk/VxVNQVWMf2I/AAAAAAAAAHE/_02F4dRZcB840ROnKikkwz_r--qMra-2wCLcB/s1600/blog%2Banthropolgist.jpg)
You are quoting the initial press release which was proven false...the anthropologist was mistaken
Reasonable first point Dave.... I'll work on that one...
What else would make Redwood reportedly make a point, with clever wording, of saying that she possibly may not have been alive before she left the apartment.... So he's not just saying she's possibly dead (which is a no brainer, imo). Afaik there is no other evidence to suggest MM died in the apartment - only Eddie's alert.
Also despite the smears surrounding Eddie's work in the awful hell hole at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey it's worth remembering some context (link further down):
In February 2008 a police investigation started on site at the home, this investigation was brought about after allegations of the abuse, and murder of children at the home. Eddie, the dog widely regarded as the best in the world, and who had also, the year previous worked on the Madeleine McCann case, was brought in with his trainer, Martin Grime. Below is a link, filmed by the Homicide Search Advisor of the National Policing Improvement Agency, present with him at the time was former Deputy Chief Police Officer Mr. Lenny Harper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THoDAqUTl48)
As you will hear from the start of the video, Mr Harper was in no way confident as to Eddie's abilities, not least of all because of the bad press Eddie had received at the hands of pro McCann claims after his findings in 2007. That opinion was soon to change, as you can see by the report he made to accompany the video below, take note at some of the amazing tests that Eddie passed with flying colours Mr Harper describes at the start of his report. JAR/6 is a fragment of a child's skull:
Taken from the following link:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html (http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.co.uk/2012_03_01_archive.html)
"00.00.0 Getting ready. I was reluctant to let the dog inside as I did not feel that it would do much good. In truth, I was a little sceptical – I had not felt a favourable impression from the handler (Martin Grimes (sic)) at our initial meeting and I was dubious, although my opinion of his qualities and integrity was to markedly change as events unfolded. I began to realise as I worked closely with him over a period of months that what I originally took as arrogance was simply supreme confidence in the ability of his dogs in the face of jealous, empire protecting rivals who were not as professionally capable. Throughout the investigation, we subjected Martin and his dogs to many ‘verifying’ tests, from burying swabs in sand (which he always found no matter how large an area), to minute blood stains. The dogs never failed. Many of these tests were carried out in front of Jersey politicians and media, including Channel Television and Diane Simon of the JEP. Frank Walker and Andrew Lewis were only two of the politicians who witnessed the ability of the dogs in hugely impressive displays. Funny how they all forgot this when they jumped on the bandwagon which sought to ruin Martin Grime’s reputation. One of the most spectacular exercises occurred when one of the Anthropologists brought a vial of sand back that she had removed from the tomb of a mummy in Egypt. We put this vial on a beach, below the sand, and let Eddie off to look for it. The dog amazingly sought it out in a few minutes and gave us the reaction you will see in this video. To get back to the start of the video and my initial doubts, after a few days outside I had at least gained a grudging respect for Martin’s hard work and dedication.
Furthermore I've read reports that the famous piece of "coconut shell" was later found at a University lab to contain collagen (not found in coconut shells!!)... and as the builders from the site suspected they had likely found human bones (though not of HDLG inmates/victims)... So Eddie's alerts were spot on imo....
Here's a Police summary:
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hY8Vy3va_gk/VxVNQVWMf2I/AAAAAAAAAHE/_02F4dRZcB840ROnKikkwz_r--qMra-2wCLcB/s1600/blog%2Banthropolgist.jpg)
And here's a few lab results from many more:
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. human.
JAR/53: 183. Cellar 3 Dark char rich deposit equivalent to 169.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
5 fragments of calcined long bone ?human.
JAR/69: 183. Zone 3 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
Fragments x 3 of possible human cortical bone.
JAR/61: 183 Zone 4 East Cellar 3.
4 / 5: 1960s to present date.
23 Fragments of bone:
1 Burnt fragment which closely resembles a human juvenile mastoid process.
2. Burnt fragment of ?human mandible.
3. Fragments of burnt long bone x 3 measuring between 11.3 and 16.3 mm.
4. Fragments of unidentified burnt cortical and trabecular bone x 7.
5. Fragment of slightly burnt long bone measuring 33 mm. The cortex of the
bone resembles human but it is quite thick and the trabeculae can not be seen because it requires cleaning. It appears to have been cut at one end.
6. Fragments of unburnt unidentified long bone. x 3 The appearance and texture of the cortex of the fragments appears more animal than human but it is advised that further examination should be undertaken in order to confirm this.
7. Fragments of unidentified long bone x 7. 5 have been burnt and 2 haven’t. Species
uncertain although two of the burnt fragments could possibly be human
And with regards to your coconut smear.... here's a much clearer picture:
"23 February 2008 - fragment JAR/6 found, recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating.”
On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”
I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.
We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.
On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”
Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.
At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”
In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.
I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?
I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey Establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.
The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.
The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.
....
Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment. However, they then change their mind again and say the fragment is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February?
On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
Now, how Wiltshire, in the light of Brock’s final comment, can say that anyone knew what JAR/6 was can only be answered by Wiltshire themselves. As they have ignored these e mails perhaps that gives a clue. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out, that the letter which this lab e mailed me three weeks after they allegedly sent it, was no more conclusive and ended up by advising me that if I wanted to know what JAR/6 was, I should have it re-examined by an Anthropologist in a Laboratory.
By then of course, we knew it was irrelevant and would be a waste of money to do so. Why then, did Gradwell et al send something labelled as JAR/6 off to Kew Gardens when they not only knew it to be irrelevant, but would also have known that the careless way they and the Oxford Lab had handled the item, meant that no court in the land would have accepted that it was beyond doubt the same item that we had originally labelled JAR/6? Seems a waste of money, but as Gradwell refused to give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel about financial matters we may never know!!! Lenny Harper
.....
There should be no problem whatsoever with accounting for the movements and whereabouts of this fragment, JAR/6, at any time. Each time it moves from or to the police store it should be carefully logged. We found the item on 23rd February. It remained with us, until from memory, the 6th March when it was taken to the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford. We logged it out. We logged it back in again on 8th April when our Anthropologist again examined it and noticed that its appearance had changed considerably, and she was now not so sure of her verdict, although she could not reach a definite conclusion.
The item should have been in the presence of the Oxford lab throughout the time it was there but it seems, that in breach of the rules of evidence they 'passed it around.' They seem to have got themselves into a real tangle, first of all stating it was too old for finding collagen, then finding it, then saying it was too degraded to date.
Somewhere in all of this, a lab technician made the throwaway comment that it looked like a piece of coconut. (Funny how it was an unqualified technician and none of the experts who had examined it closely) This is the origin of the "ILM coconut" theory and of course encouraged by Warcup and Gradwell, along with their other public declarations such as the cellars not being cellars but only three feet voids. The item JAR/6 came back to us without a log of its movements from Oxford. As soon as it returned then we commenced again logging its movements and it should be no problem whatsoever to account for it from there on. Lenny Harper
......
If you read the full list of what was recovered from HDLG, and all the allegations from the victims, it's astonishing that attempts were made to discredit the investigation and focus on 'the coconut'. But this is Jersey...... "
Link as to where this came from.... who wrote it
The The Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry 2017 confirms that bone fragments were found at HDLG:
" In May 2008,further specimens, including children's milk teeth and bone fragments,underwent forensic testing. Subsequently, no findings emerged that warranted the launch of a homicide investigation"
I believe that the testing was carried out at Sheffield University.
The point though - however old the bones, and even if murder at HDLG was not proven - Eddie's alert to human remains was correct.
And with regards to your coconut smear.... here's a much clearer picture:
"23 February 2008 - fragment JAR/6 found, recovered from Context 011 Trench 3. Degraded fragment of bone thought to be human skull, probably from a child (see full inventory for details). Associated with mixed debris including animal bone, buttons and a leather “thong”. Discussed findings with SIO Lenny HARPER and Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND. It was decided that the bone should be sent for C14 dating.”
On 8 and 9 April 2008 I re-examined JAR/6. Since I initially examined the fragment it had dried out considerably and changed in colour, texture and weight. These changes caused me to reconsider my initial observation that the fragment was human bone, although I cannot reach a definite conclusion without conducting further chemical analysis. I reported my findings to Forensic Manager Vicky COUPLAND and SIO Lenny HARPER and we discussed a number of options regarding how to proceed with the fragment. Our conclusion was that as the fragment had been found in the pre 1940’s phase of the building, no further work would be conducted on it.”
I detail below the sequence of events relating to the examination of the fragment. This is fully corroborated by copy e-mails from the lab which examined the fragment. I am not aware that it has ever been identified as a coconut. Anthropologists are trained to identify human remains. The only anthropologist to examine it thought it part of a child’s skull. On seeing it later when it had changed its appearance she was not so sure. People carrying out Carbon Dating are trained for that process, not identifying the matter. Even then, they gave contradictory and confused information to us. When reading below, bear in mind that collagen is found only in mammals, not wood, not coconut.
We sent the fragment off for dating around the 3rd or 4th March. If Gradwell and Warcup are to be believed I already knew it was hundreds of years old. Why would we send it off for dating if we already knew? However, my remarks above and the Anthropologist’s worksheet make it clear this was not true. The accompanying form completed by the Forensic Services Manager which went with the fragment also makes it clear that we did not know its age when we sent it off in March. Why would Mr. Gradwell claim that we did? There are also e-mails which must still be within the SOJP system which make it clear that we did not know the age of the fragment when sending it off, particularly those sent by the Forensic Services Manager.
On 28th March we received an e-mail from a Ms Brock at the Laboratory in relation to the fragment. Here are some excerpts from the e-mail.
“Hi Vicky. Here are the details of the Jersey skull as discussed on the phone earlier. As I said, the chemistry of this bone is extremely unusual – nothing I am familiar with.”
“During the first acid washes we often get a lot of fizzing as the mineral dissolves. The Jersey skull didn’t fizz at all, which suggested that preservation was poor, and which led me to test the nitrogen content of the bone.”
“The Jersey skull had 0.60 nitrogen, which suggested that it contained virtually no collagen. Once we had this result, Tom phoned you and told you it would be unlikely that we could date the sample, but that we would continue with the pre-treatment just in case.”
“Very surprisingly, the sample yielded 1.6% collagen (our cut off for dating is 1%).”
“As there is no nitrogen it cannot contain collagen unless it is highly degraded. The chances are it is highly contaminated and any date we get for it might not be accurate. I have e-mailed the director and asked if we should proceed with a date.”
Now, if you look at that e-mail, it makes clear a number of things. Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment, but then change their mind again and say it is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February? On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
It is clear from those e-mails that the lab did not know what the fragment was. Why, then, have Messrs Simon, Gradwell, and Warcup insisted that the fragment was identified as a coconut by a person qualified to do so? By the time I retired, the only person to suggest the item might be a fragment of coconut was a technician who was trying to date it. No Anthropologist has ever identified it as such. One way to clear this would be to have it further examined, and I am not aware if that has ever been done. I am told, rightly or wrongly, however, that it has been lost. If true, how convenient.
At the time, I e-mailed the laboratory and asked them two questions. The first was “Are you saying definitively that this is not bone?” The second was “If you do not think it is bone how can you explain the presence of more collagen than is usually needed to date bearing in mind that collagen is found only in mammals?”
In answer to the first question they told me they did not think it was bone but the only way we could be sure was to have it re-examined by someone qualified to do so. I am still waiting on an answer to the question about the collagen.
I am therefore at a loss, given the above, which is all documented and evidenced, how either Mr. Gradwell, Mr. Warcup, or Diane Simon can say that I knew at a very early stage that the fragment was definitely old and that it was definitely a piece of coconut. The truth is that, as I left the island, we did not know what it was. The Anthropologist who declared it a piece of a child’s skull could not be as certain after seeing it six weeks later when it had changed pretty substantially. Even then she said it would need further examination, which in effect is what the lab said. Why would anyone try to make out this was not the case?
I have had to explain those details in response to so much nonsense which has been peddled by the Jersey Establishment – but we shouldn’t be diverted by the issue of this, one fragment.
The crucial fact – that the powers-that-be in Jersey don’t want people to understand – is that the single fragment in question had been discounted from the investigation.
The important thing of course is not what it is. That stopped being important when we found out how old it was. Gradwell, Warcup, and Ms. Simon have totally ignored that fact. They have tried to tell the public that I knew it was coconut and/or too old to be of interest very early on, but nevertheless pursued the investigation solely on the basis of that, one, fragment. Their story is a total fabrication.
....
Firstly, they, the experts on dating, are not sure they can date it. Secondly, they make it clear they have found more than enough collagen (only found in mammals) to date the fragment. However, they then change their mind again and say the fragment is too badly degraded. Also, note the use of the terms ‘skull’ and ‘bone.’ If the experts cannot be sure on 28th March, how can anyone say that I knew on 24th February?
On 31st March, Ms Brock e-mailed again. In this e-mail, headed, “Re: Jersey Skull for C14 Dating,” she said that ‘the Director had now expressed concern about what the fragment was. The Technician (who is not an Anthropologist) who was carrying out the process commented that it ‘looked like a coconut husk.’ She went on to say “If it isn’t bone I am really sorry,” but then finishes with “although it could well have been poorly preserved bone as I described it.”
Now, how Wiltshire, in the light of Brock’s final comment, can say that anyone knew what JAR/6 was can only be answered by Wiltshire themselves. As they have ignored these e mails perhaps that gives a clue. Furthermore, it should also be pointed out, that the letter which this lab e mailed me three weeks after they allegedly sent it, was no more conclusive and ended up by advising me that if I wanted to know what JAR/6 was, I should have it re-examined by an Anthropologist in a Laboratory.
By then of course, we knew it was irrelevant and would be a waste of money to do so. Why then, did Gradwell et al send something labelled as JAR/6 off to Kew Gardens when they not only knew it to be irrelevant, but would also have known that the careless way they and the Oxford Lab had handled the item, meant that no court in the land would have accepted that it was beyond doubt the same item that we had originally labelled JAR/6? Seems a waste of money, but as Gradwell refused to give evidence to the Scrutiny Panel about financial matters we may never know!!! Lenny Harper
.....
There should be no problem whatsoever with accounting for the movements and whereabouts of this fragment, JAR/6, at any time. Each time it moves from or to the police store it should be carefully logged. We found the item on 23rd February. It remained with us, until from memory, the 6th March when it was taken to the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford. We logged it out. We logged it back in again on 8th April when our Anthropologist again examined it and noticed that its appearance had changed considerably, and she was now not so sure of her verdict, although she could not reach a definite conclusion.
The item should have been in the presence of the Oxford lab throughout the time it was there but it seems, that in breach of the rules of evidence they 'passed it around.' They seem to have got themselves into a real tangle, first of all stating it was too old for finding collagen, then finding it, then saying it was too degraded to date.
Somewhere in all of this, a lab technician made the throwaway comment that it looked like a piece of coconut. (Funny how it was an unqualified technician and none of the experts who had examined it closely) This is the origin of the "ILM coconut" theory and of course encouraged by Warcup and Gradwell, along with their other public declarations such as the cellars not being cellars but only three feet voids. The item JAR/6 came back to us without a log of its movements from Oxford. As soon as it returned then we commenced again logging its movements and it should be no problem whatsoever to account for it from there on. Lenny Harper
......
If you read the full list of what was recovered from HDLG, and all the allegations from the victims, it's astonishing that attempts were made to discredit the investigation and focus on 'the coconut'. But this is Jersey...... "
Human bones were found.
JAR/33: 3-4; 1940s to 1980’s.
Calcined fragment of bone. human.
Despite the smears Eddie did what he was trained to do and alerted to human remains.
Have aread of this and you will see why I refer to Grimes involvement at HDLG as a debacle. almost 100K and nothing of any use found.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
They were not happy with Grime were they. His licence had expired seven months beforehand and he give them a discount!! They say his skills were just those of a dog handler.
You are mixing up official and unnoficial reports. Once again no cite/link to much of what you have claimed.
the only official report you have cited shows the only proven human remains were milk teeth. These are shed naturally...there are no permanent teeth found...in his later white paper grime says a cadaver dogs do not alert.
to teeth. The supposed skull was later confirmed as coconut or wood.
So at great expense eddie and grime found NOTHING of any use....same as in Luz. There was another official report which severely criticised Grimes involvemnet ...its been posted here several times
If you don’t believe the 2017 Independent report cited is the official one please give us a link to what you believe is an official version. You know as well as I do that human bones were found at HdlG. What was never proven was any evidence for murder against the victims of the well documented and tragic abuse that occurred there.
How would that affect any evidence...that he was not licenced
I would think that if the licence had expired Grime should have had his dogs examined to see if they were up to the job he was claiming they could do. If they passed then he would get his licence, though I don't know how they go about it.
Have aread of this and you will see why I refer to Grimes involvement at HDLG as a debacle. almost 100K and nothing of any use found.
https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20Operation%20Rectangle%20review%20of%20the%20efficient%20and%20effective%20use%20of%20resources%20201005%20BDO%20Alto.pdf
This report was produced by a firm of chartered accountants aided by a retired policeman. The objective of the Review was "to provide an independent and objective opinion on the financial and governance controls in place
in respect of the HCAE investigation in order to provide assurance to the Accounting Officer and Minister that resources have been used efficiently and effectively.
It was not within their remit to examine or comment on Grime's capabilities, and they weren't qualified to do so.
The review included a highly experienced policeman....the review was highly critical of Grimes unlicenced invovement. Did he just forget to renew his licence...highly unprofessional
The official report does not say there was collagen in the coconut...I don't think the official report mentions human bones either
Provide a cite to support your claims
I have done and posted a link to the 2017 official report. It confirms that human bones were found and does claim the “skull” was NOT bone. It does not however account for the collagen from the earlier report. It just vaguely asserts it wasn’t human without giving evidence. That’s not the point though! The coconut / skull had just one specimen. Human bones were found and Eddie was correct with his alert.
Press conference notes from Operation Rectangle updateThat’s a press release from 2008 not the official report. The report from 2017 states there were human bones there. Why do you want to discredit the investigation so badly? Is it because the presence of bone proves that Eddie was correct or do you have some other interest in the case? Genuine question! Thanks.
Press Release : Operation Rectangle
Snip
It is also essential, however, to ensure that the facts are reported properly.
An assessment of the evidence available has revealed that the forensic recoveries do not indicate that there have been murders of children or other people at Haut de la Garenne. Nor is it believed that the evidence indicates that bodies have been destroyed, buried or hidden at Haut de la Garenne.
Should any further evidence come to light, this will be assessed, and whatever action is necessary will be taken.
The Deputy Chief Officer, David Warcup, stated:
"It is unfortunate that we now believe that the information which was put into the public domain by the States of Jersey Police about certain ˜finds' at Haut de la Garenne was inaccurate, and we regret this.
With regard to the particular evidence which has been highlighted in the media, the States of Jersey Police are clear that these do not support suggestions that there have been murders at Haut de la Garenne. In particular;
A Piece of Child's Skull
An anthropologist made an initial identification as this item being a piece of child's skull.
At 10:45 am the SIO made a decision to release information to the press about the find.
At 2pm the same day a press conference disclosed this item as the finding of the potential remains of a child.
This item was lying within earth that is now identified as being Victorian era.
On the 31st March 2008 Dr Higham from the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit stated he believed the item was not bone.
The original anthropologist reviewed her initial identification and on 14th April 2008 had stated she no longer identified it as part of a skull.
Dr Higham and Dr Jacobi (of the British Museum faunal specialist) concluded that the sample was not in fact bone, but was almost certainly wood. They went further stating it was more like a part of a seed casing like a small piece of coconut.
The conclusions are therefore that the sample is a) Not bone and b) Not human.
The States of Jersey Police satisfied that having liaised with the anthropologist and Dr Higham and other experts, that this item is not human and was found in a Victorian context.
˜Shackles' and ˜Restraints':
The item referred to as ˜Shackles' was found in rubble on the ground floor of HDLG on 28th February. These are in fact rusty pieces of metal. There is no witness evidence or intelligence which indicates these should be described as shackles or that shackles resembling this description have been used during the commission of any offences.
The item called a ˜restraint' was found amongst general debris in an under floor area. However, there is no evidence or intelligence indicating this is anything suspicious.
The Bath and blood stains:
This bath in the under floor voids has no water supply and has not been used as a bath since the 1920's when a brick pillar was constructed within it. During the search a specialist search dog reacted to the bath and a presumptive test indicated positive for blood in a minute area of the bath. Following detailed forensic microscopic examination no blood has been found. There is nothing suspicious about the bath and no indication this bath has been used in the commission of any offences.
The Cellars
These are floor voids. They are not cellars, and it is impossible for a grown person to stand up straight in the floor voids under Haut de la Garenne.
Teeth
There are 65 teeth found in the floor voids and 1 elsewhere. They are milk teeth coming from at least 10 people - up to a maximum of 65 people. Around 45 of the teeth originate from children aged 9 to 12 yrs and 20 from the range 6 to 8 years.
There is wear on some of the teeth; these teeth generally have the appearance of being shed naturally.
It is possible for more tests to be done on the teeth to clarify age and other factors.
Bones
170 pieces of bone which are mainly animal were found in the area of HDLG which was searched. Many more pieces of bone were found in the area of the grounds, all of which are animal.
Of all that material, there are 3 fragments which are ˜possibly' human; the biggest piece is 25 mm long.
2 fragments date 1470 to 1650 and the other 1650 to 1950
These have not definitely been identified as human bone. Taking in all this information, this is an unexplained find if it is human, but not necessarily suspicious.
The Pits
These were dug in the late 1970s and are unexplained, but nothing suspicious has been found in either of them.
In summary;
No people are reported missing
There are no allegations of murder
There are no suspects for murder
There is no specific time period for murder.
We are satisfied that there is no indication or evidence that there have been murders at HDLG.
The Deputy Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police, David Warcup stated, "I continue to have every confidence in the detectives and investigators who are currently working on the historical abuse enquiry. The have worked extremely hard in their search for the truth and to bring offenders to justice.
https://jersey.police.uk/news-appeals/2008/november/press-conference-notes-from-operation-rectangle-update/
That’s a press release from 2008 not the official report. The report from 2017 states there were human bones there. Why do you want to discredit the investigation so badly? Is it because the presence of bone proves that Eddie was correct or do you have some other interest in the case? Genuine question! Thanks.
I have done and posted a link to the 2017 official report. It confirms that human bones were found and does claim the “skull” was NOT bone. It does not however account for the collagen from the earlier report. It just vaguely asserts it wasn’t human without giving evidence. That’s not the point though! The coconut / skull had just one specimen. Human bones were found and Eddie was correct with his alert.
this is what you posted..
The The Report of the Independent Jersey Care Inquiry 2017 confirms that bone fragments were found at HDLG:
" In May 2008,further specimens, including children's milk teeth and bone fragments,underwent forensic testing. Subsequently, no findings emerged that warranted the launch of a homicide investigation"
that says bone fragmnets not human bone
Fair point... but neither does it say they weren’t human.
What a rubbish answer
But true isn’t it Dave. You can’t show they weren’t human bone fragments.I couldn't give s toss for such a pathetic claim
But true isn’t it Dave. You can’t show they weren’t human bone fragments.Perhaps you could provide evidence that they were.
Perhaps you could provide evidence that they were.
I don’t need to. It’s not me that is trying to discredit Eddie’s alert. The fact is you can’t discredit Eddie’s alert at the hell hole of child abuse at HdlG since you can’t prove he didn’t alert to human remains.... and didn’t Eddie do well on all those preliminary tests!I can’t prove he didn’t alert to the bones of the Loch Ness monster or Lord Lucan either, but I can prove he alerted to a spermy old tissue, which was useful.
I can’t prove he didn’t alert to the bones of the Loch Ness monster or Lord Lucan either, but I can prove he alerted to a spermy old tissue, which was useful.
Of course you can. Well done you!@)(++(* Why did Martin Grime not say that and instead say that the alert was within normal parameters or whatever similar term he used?
If that tissue was near some human remains I think you’ll find that it was those Eddie alerted to. Eddie doesn’t alert to sperm. Why do you want to discredit the dog so badly?
Of course you can. Well done you!
If that tissue was near some human remains I think you’ll find that it was those Eddie alerted to. Eddie doesn’t alert to sperm. Why do you want to discredit the dog so badly?
For me its because there are so many lies told about the cadaver dog
Obviously the FBI didn't share your opinion, though.
Its not opinion.
It is your opinion that some of Eddie's alerts was not to cadaver odour in Apartment 5a.
It's opinion that the dogs are of little value. It's not an opinion shared by the FBI.
its not opinion that lies have been told about the dogs its a fact. ive never said the dogs are of little value. the dogs are very useful when used properly.
For me its because there are so many lies told about the cadaver dog
Who is being accused of lying?Nobody - apart from Martin Grime by Davel.
Nobody - apart from Martin Grime by Davel.
I do hope not. In my opinion that's libellous.
then you need to read my post before accusing e of libel...i havent accused Grime of lying. these are some of the lies.....
Help solve 200 cases
Never been wrong in 200 cases
100% record
Eddie discoverd a body under a slab of concrete in Jersey
So you've decided that lies were told by an unnamed person or people? That's a big vague, isn't it?
they are told by lots of people...do you agree they are lies
Metropolitan PoliceI thought Eddie had gone to the great Boneyard In the Sky?
@metpoliceuk
10h
A deadly weapon is off the streets thanks to the keen nose of police dog Eddie.
Following an intelligence led operation, Eddie was called in and within 15 minutes, he located a concealed weapon.
Well done Eddie!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/ad_img/1283688541135003649/43nnK4-z?format=jpg&name=small)
https://twitter.com/metpoliceuk/status/1283688823352889344
http://news.met.police.uk/news/pd-eddie-tracks-and-traces-a-concealed-loaded-gun-407519
I thought Eddie had gone to the great Boneyard In the Sky?
No. Misunderstandings perhaps. I don't think anyone had any reason to tell deliberate lies about such things.
Im happy to accept misunderstandings...but what does it say about the likes of Amaral...Saukonoko...Pat Brown...
sonial poulton....peter mac....R D Hall... when they are unable to separate fact from fantasy....You say you beleive in the truth...these people are spreading lies....they may not realise they are lies...but they are...and the fact they don't realise that shows how ignorant they are
Im happy to accept misunderstandings...but what does it say about the likes of Amaral...Saukonoko...Pat Brown....... and how brilliant you are Davel.
sonial poulton....peter mac....R D Hall... when they are unable to separate fact from fantasy....You say you beleive in the truth...these people are spreading lies....they may not realise they are lies...but they are...and the fact they don't realise that shows how ignorant they are
Only in your opinion.not in my opinion...fact
.... and how brilliant you are Davel.i'm posting fact...not opinion...that to me is basic
Only in your opinion.
So you've decided that lies were told by an unnamed person or people? That's a big vague, isn't it?its not vague ...some of these are in amarals book...and believed by thos ewho are not aware of the truth
Im happy to accept misunderstandings...but what does it say about the likes of Amaral...Saukonoko...Pat Brown...
sonial poulton....peter mac....R D Hall... when they are unable to separate fact from fantasy....You say you beleive in the truth...these people are spreading lies....they may not realise they are lies...but they are...and the fact they don't realise that shows how ignorant they are
I'm not familiar with Peter Mac and I believe R D Hall to be a useful stooge (he does spread fantasy!).
However Mark Saunokonoko raises valid questions and explains coherently why the McCanns became suspects in involvement in MM's dissappearance. I think that much of the time Dave, you fail to see outside of your tunnel vision and then you protestations that everyone else looks "ignorant" carries little weight. Dogs aside (and I believe you to be wrong on that score - but your logic valid) you rarely offer any substance to your argument. You claim there is evidence that MM was abducted but you never produce it. You clain there is a great deal of evidence that CB was involved but you're taking some circumstantial evidence from the press coupled with some words from a German prosecutor (who seems to be lacking the evidenced to charge anyone) as damning evidence against CB.
You then ignore circumstantial evidence against G and K and instead just try to mock and rubbish the evidence without ever offering any sudstance to your opinion. Dr Perlin is an expert scientist who claims he can make sense of the DNA evidence. You like the rest of us are an internet armchair detective, and yet you lack the common sense to see that when it comes down to expert testimony Dr Perlin is somewhat more qualified than you are in the field of forensic science. There are ways you could argue against him with valid points - but instead you try to rubbish people like you do with Mark Saunokonoko et al. Imo it actually weakens your argument. To be fair to you Brietta is even worse. This is not a personal attack on either of you but an observation on your posts. You both seem to be in total denial that it was perfectly valid to make the parents arguidos. There are questions and red flags that should be investigated. Not least the human cellular material collected after the dog alerts zand the fact that in some areas in the apartment Eddie alerted but Keela did not.
Keela had to be shown things as Eddie was. I am not aware that she was shown the high bit of wall near the wardrobe that Eddie seemed to alert to.
She is short and dumpy, so not as able to reach the heights that Eddie was able to, especially when he was on his back legs. My bet is that with his lively approach he could reach at least twice as high as Keela. I don't thing , one way or another, that Keela was introduced to, or able to reach, the smell Eddie seemed to re-act to. We don't even know if she went in that room, do we? Please correct me if I am wrong on the last sentence
Billy, were you round when this was discussed before and in detail?
Were you aware that Tasmin Silences Grandpa died in hospital in PT ? Tasmins Gramp lived in 5A and left a widow. Presumably he was cremated and his ashes put in an urn.
What do you think his bereft widow, in a foreign country, would have done with those ashes? My guess is that the urn was placed on a chest or bedside table and * IF * any cadaver scent was in the room, it came from those, or from his Pjays /watch that he died in
I’m sorry but you have absolutely no evidence for any of that whatsoever.Can you prove that Keela was shown that spot on the wall which Eddie seemed to alert to?
I’m sorry but you have absolutely no evidence for any of that whatsoever.
Keela had to be shown things as Eddie was. I am not aware that she was shown the high bit of wall near the wardrobe that Eddie seemed to alert to.
She is short and dumpy, so not as able to reach the heights that Eddie was able to, especially when he was on his back legs. My bet is that with his lively approach he could reach at least twice as high as Keela. I don't thing , one way or another, that Keela was introduced to, or able to reach, the smell Eddie seemed to re-act to. We don't even know if she went in that room, do we? Please correct me if I am wrong on the last sentence
Billy, were you around when this was discussed before and in detail?
Were you aware that Tasmin Silences Grandpa died in hospital in PT ? Tasmins Gramp lived in 5A and left a widow. Presumably he was cremated and his ashes put in an urn.
What do you think his bereft widow, in a foreign country, would have done with those ashes? My guess is that the urn was placed on a chest or bedside table and * IF * any cadaver scent was in the room, it came from those, or from his Pjays /watch that he died in
Have you got a cite for those claims please, Sadie?
perhaps before asking for cites you might supply some yourself
Have you got a cite for those claims please, Sadie?
I think I may very well be waiting for one I requested either yesterday or the day before.
Have you got any proof that Keela was shown the spot that Eddie alerted to ? This was on the wall quite high; too high for Keela IMO. Do we have a video showing Keela in Kate and Gerrys bedroom that we can all study together. I can't remember one.
Can anyone post it, if it exists. please.
Can you prove that Keela was shown that spot on the wall which Eddie seemed to alert to?
Do you deny that Tasmins Grandpa died in hospital, leaving a widow in a foreign country?
Do you deny that Grandpas watch and pjays would almost certainly have the cadaver odour on them?
Do you deny that likely the ashes were in an urn somewhere in the flat?
Do you deny that the most likely place that a bereft widow would keep such as the casket of ashes would be by the side of the bed to comfort her during the night ? And the watch … and even possibly for a while the Pjays ?
Nothing at all safe about your assumptions of what Eddie showed. We don't even know if he was marking blood or Cadavar odour.
Admit it Faith … nothing at all safe
Yes Eddie alerted at the wardrobe and Keela was put inside.Where is the proof that that is actual footage from PdL?
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article14141172.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
Do human ashes even emit volatile organic compounds? There's some reasearch for a rainy Saturday afternoon!!
Apparently:
From the Op Rectangle Report
'VT / 9 Trench and gun emplacement containing small personnel shelter. Forensic examination revealed recently deposited tissues that appeared to have been used to ‘clean up following sexual intercourse’. It would appear that the shelter had been used as a venue for courting couples. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
Base of an oak tree planted as a memorial to the two sons of Mr Hamon, Flat 2 Delborgho Lodge, Upper Clarendon Road, St Hellier. The cremated remains of the two adult sons had been previously scattered just under the surface of the ground and the tree planted as a permanent memorial together with a plaque. This alert is within the trained parameters of the dog’s repertoire and is a satisfactory explanation of the alert.
There being no other points of interest, intelligence led excavation of the site commenced to locate and investigate defensive positions by excavation, forensic examination and canine screening.'
http://voiceforprotest.blogspot.com/2010/03/operation-rectangle-summary-report.html
from what Ive read grime isnt consistent wth what triggers an alert. In his white paper he says teeth do not cause an alert...yet in Jersey it seems he thought they did
"White paper"?
Experiment with piglets to determine when a live person gives out the scent of a dead one conclusion they wouldn't send a cadaver dog out until two days after a disaster to search for the dead.
These findings are important when considering the use of scent-detection dogs during disaster victim search and recovery. It is clear that the VOC profile during the early postmortem period is dynamic and changes both hourly and daily. Notably, the period on day 2 whereby the VOC profile transitioned to a complex postmortem odour could have potential ramifications on the choice of scent-detection dogs deployed to a disaster scene. Given that the early postmortem odour appears to more closely resemble an antemortem odour until day 2, the use of human scent dogs may be more effective during the first 24 h following a mass disaster. While HRD dogs may be more effective as a search tool after 48 h when the VOC profile more closely resembles decomposition odour.
from what Ive read grime isnt consistent wth what triggers an alert. In his white paper he says teeth do not cause an alert...yet in Jersey it seems he thought they did
Do you think there was a dead piglet behind the sofa them L
There wasn’t just teeth found in Jersey.... Let’s also not forget what went on there.
There wasn’t just teeth found in Jersey.... Let’s also not forget what went on there.
The circus which went on in Haute de la Garenne took time and resources away from the real cases of child abuse in Jersey.
No child was murdered there ... no child went missing there ... and whatever Eddie alerted to it was not cadaver scent ... except on one occasion when I believe he alerted to a spot where cremation ashes had been scattered.
Grime trained Eddie on pig meat.
How can you say "it was not cadaver scent"... when you can't prove that some of the bone fragments weren't human? Whoever heard of a coconut shell with collagen? I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I'm highly suspicious that there are attempts at a cover up regarding who was involved in the abuse at HdlG.
Which force investigated HdlG, Dave? That's a genuine question, btw.
Where do you think it's from *%87
31 minutes
it seems to belong to Duarte Levy ... who, according to Morais is not the real deal.
it seems to belong to Duarte Levy ... who, according to Morais is not the real deal.
The footage is real regardless of the titles later added. You know it's very easy to do!I accept the cite thanks https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1932 has Keela on the shelves of the wardrobe and no alerts are made by her.
I accept the cite thanks https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1932 has Keela on the shelves of the wardrobe and no alerts are made by her.
I accept the cite thanks https://youtu.be/c4NMYPsFKb8?t=1932 has Keela on the shelves of the wardrobe and no alerts are made by her.
Meaning that Eddie's alert there is likely (90-95% certainty) to have been to cadaver odour.So if CB murdered Madeleine whose cadaver was in 5A? Gets tricky doesn't it.
So if CB murdered Madeleine whose cadaver was in 5A? Gets tricky doesn't it.
And ALL cadaver dogs alert to it. Your point?
I suggest you read this -
These findings are important when considering the use of scent-detection dogs during disaster victim search and recovery. It is clear that the VOC profile during the early postmortem period is dynamic and changes both hourly and daily. Notably, the period on day 2 whereby the VOC profile transitioned to a complex postmortem odour could have potential ramifications on the choice of scent-detection dogs deployed to a disaster scene. Given that the early postmortem odour appears to more closely resemble an antemortem odour until day 2, the use of human scent dogs may be more effective during the first 24 h following a mass disaster. While HRD dogs may be more effective as a search tool after 48 h when the VOC profile more closely resembles decomposition odour.
The pig didn't enter the antemortem stage until 2 days after death, so are you saying Madeleine was in 5a for two days? There is no gas emitted in the early stages of decomposition, so there was no death scent wafting around in corners in 5a.
You are trying to come to conclusions without sufficient knowledge. Your post has mistakes in it.
Meaning that Eddie's alert there is likely (90-95% certainty) to have been to cadaver odour.Not at all
What mistakes?Well this statement is nonsensical for a start "The pig didn't enter the antemortem stage until 2 days after death,".
Well this statement is nonsensical for a start "The pig didn't enter the antemortem stage until 2 days after death,".
What were you trying to say?
What mistakes?I would say that this is also wrong: " There is no gas emitted in the early stages of decomposition."
You are trying to come to conclusions without sufficient knowledge. Your post has mistakes in it.
It was what the scientist said Rob, here is the full article -Nowhere in that article does it say "The pig didn't enter the antemortem stage until 2 days after death,"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844015303789
Cadaver dogs still seem to be ahead of humans, as they have indicated the locations of where bodies have lain for short periods very soon after death.Cite please...or is this more myth. Very soon after death is questionable
Can you prove that Keela was shown that spot on the wall which Eddie seemed to alert to?
Do you deny that Tasmins Grandpa died in hospital, leaving a widow in a foreign country?
Do you deny that Grandpas watch and pjays would almost certainly have the cadaver odour on them?
Do you deny that likely the ashes were in an urn somewhere in the flat?
Do you deny that the most likely place that a bereft widow would keep such as the casket of ashes would be by the side of the bed to comfort her during the night ? And the watch … and even possibly for a while the Pjays ?
Nothing at all safe about your assumptions of what Eddie showed. We don't even know if he was marking blood or Cadavar odour.
Admit it Faith … nothing at all safe
Nowhere in that article does it say "The pig didn't enter the antemortem stage until 2 days after death,"
Cadaver dogs still seem to be ahead of humans, as they have indicated the locations of where bodies have lain for short periods very soon after death.
Well this statement is nonsensical for a start "The pig didn't enter the antemortem stage until 2 days after death,".
What were you trying to say?
It was what the scientist said Rob, here is the full article -
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844015303789
Cadaver dogs still seem to be ahead of humans, as they have indicated the locations of where bodies have lain for short periods very soon after death.
it says until day two the scent still resembled antemortem, Rob read it again.
Madeleine would not have been in 5a long enough to emit decomposition gases. Sorry.
It still smelled the same as before it died. Sheesh.
I would say that this is also wrong: " There is no gas emitted in the early stages of decomposition."
I believe a dog’s sense of smell is 40 times more sensitive than ours.
How soon after death?On experiment it was as short as 90 minutes IIRC.
If a body is no longer there, then the cadaver dog would have to rely on gases that the cadaver had left behind, if the body hadn't been there for gases to escape, then there would be no cadaver scent.
The body would reach the bloat stage before any gas would be emitted.No that is wrong.
Decomposition starts right away, who'e going to argue its not detectable.
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/10/30/decompositionodour/
On experiment it was as short as 90 minutes IIRC.
People seem to assume it is gasses that the dogs are smelling, I think it maybe more solid materials, for Grime said they would accumulated and gasses wouldn't do what he described IMO.
No that is wrong.
Earlier stages it is best to use "sniffer" or "Tracker" dogs that follow a specific person's scent. Cadaver dogs will find where cadavers have been but the cadaver could be anyone, not a specific person.
So why wouldn't they send the cadaver dogs in to search until the second day in a disaster?
Earlier stages it is best to use "sniffer" or "Tracker" dogs that follow a specific person's scent. Cadaver dogs will find where cadavers have been but the cadaver could be anyone, not a specific person.
Cite please...or is this more myth. Very soon after death is questionable
Decomposition starts right away, who'e going to argue its not detectable.
The fresh stage of decay kicks off about four minutes after death. Once the heart has stopped beating, the cells in the body are deprived of oxygen. As carbon dioxide and waste products build up, the cells start to break down as a result of enzymatic processes – these are known as autolysis. Initial visual signs of decomposition are minimal, although as autolysis progresses blisters and sloughing of skin may occur.
https://www.compoundchem.com/2014/10/30/decompositionodour/
That might be a fact but I'm saying a cadaver dog is not following that gas IMO.
The release of gas is so significant, whatever space or room the body is placed will begin to fill with a foul, virtually intolerable odor. People oftentimes refer to this as the smell of rotting flesh. Technically, the odor associated with a dead body after two or three days is the result of the gas being expelled by the process of bacteria consuming the body via the process of decomposition or the decomposing of human organs.
After two or three days the gas is emitted.
Why would you think I spread myths? Read the case of Bianca Jones.
Died some time after 01.00, in her bed. Placed in her car seat at 08.00ish. Car found at 10.15am, with no child in the car seat.
Martin Grime's dog Morse alerted to the bedroom and the car seat.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
Alerted to blood probably.
You obviously didn't read about the case;
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.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
You obviously didn't read about the case;
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.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
Alerted to blood probably.
Not if Keela didn’t alert in the specific location.
There was blood on the little girls pillow, no doubt she had blood on her body and so would the blanket and child seat.
Why would you think I spread myths? Read the case of Bianca Jones.
Died some time after 01.00, in her bed. Placed in her car seat at 08.00ish. Car found at 10.15am, with no child in the car seat.
Martin Grime's dog Morse alerted to the bedroom and the car seat.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
We are talking about Morse.
I dont regard 7 hours to be very soon after death....there is no proof morse alerted to cadaver odour
There are validity test statistics in forensic science research journals that show that cadaver dogs can be 92-95% accurate when alerting to cadaver odour. So the chances are that he was , unless of course it was an alert to blood.
There are validity test statistics in forensic science research journals that show that cadaver dogs can be 92-95% accurate when alerting to cadaver odour. So the chances are that he was , unless of course it was an alert to blood.
So why wouldn't they send the cadaver dogs in to search until the second day in a disaster?
The whole sceptic belief is driven by the mistaken belief in the accuracy of the dogs..imo
Because locating the survivors is more important than finding the dead ?
Why would you think I spread myths? Read the case of Bianca Jones.That does not prove the cadaver dog was right.
Died some time after 01.00, in her bed. Placed in her car seat at 08.00ish. Car found at 10.15am, with no child in the car seat.
Martin Grime's dog Morse alerted to the bedroom and the car seat.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1683760.html
Alerted to blood probably.Good point. Where was Keela in the Bianca Jones case?
I dont regard 7 hours to be very soon after death....there is no proof morse alerted to cadaver odour
Good point. Where was Keela in the Bianca Jones case?
It's less than 48 hours, isn't it?
There's a man in prison and Morse's evidence helped to put him there. Closer to home there's another man in prison and another cadaver dog's alerts helped to put him there. Cadaver dog alerts can and have been used in cases where no body can be found.
Right there with Morse and Grime, as you would know if you read the link I provided.I don’t read every link and I wasn’t asking you.
It's less than 48 hours, isn't it?Yes, like the case of the Swedish serial killer who never was, put in prison by a faulty cadaver dog called Zampo.
There's a man in prison and Morse's evidence helped to put him there. Closer to home there's another man in prison and another cadaver dog's alerts helped to put him there. Cadaver dog alerts can and have been used in cases where no body can be found.
It's less than 48 hours, isn't it?
There's a man in prison and Morse's evidence helped to put him there. Closer to home there's another man in prison and another cadaver dog's alerts helped to put him there. Cadaver dog alerts can and have been used in cases where no body can be found.
And Cadaver Dogs have been known to be wrong. If the day ever comes when Convictions rely on Dogs then Justice will be over.
They are perfectly acceptable as part of a body of circumstantial evidence imo. Forensic scientists and medical experts have been known to be wrong too.
And Cadaver Dogs have been known to be wrong. If the day ever comes when Convictions rely on Dogs then Justice will be over.
If a cadaver dog were to find Madeleine's remains on land once frequented/owned by this German suspect would you accept that.
If a cadaver dog were to find Madeleine's remains on land once frequented/owned by this German suspect would you accept that.
I don't think they need Cadaver Dogs for this. They need to climb down very deep wells and haul out any Bones.They should lower Morse into every well on a harness or hold him over the well and if he barks they can investigate further. If he doesn’t then it 100% means no body was ever put down there. It would save a lot of time and effort.
As for a grave then give me a shout. My Dachshund will find it for free. Rotten Little Swine.
They have almost never been acceptable in UK courts.....and every UK expert apart from Grime it seems accepts this. perhaps tahts why he was invited to the US....because his view seems out of line with accepted opinion
Yes, like the case of the Swedish serial killer who never was, put in prison by a faulty cadaver dog called Zampo.
Michael Stone....absolutely no eye witness evidence or forensics to tie him to the murder he was convicted of. The case was purely circumstantial.
You need to go back and read the detail of that case. None of the Police trained dogs gave false alerts... Zampo didn’t have Eddie’s credentials.
You need to go back and read the detail of that case. None of the Police trained dogs gave false alerts... Zampo didn’t have Eddie’s credentials.Zampo was a trained cadaver dog that put an inncoent man in jail, no?
Zampo was a trained cadaver dog that put an inncoent man in jail, no?
I don't believe his training was comparible to UK police training.
I don't believe his training was comparible to UK police training.Why do you believe that?
If you look at eddie's success stories...there don't seem to be many
I don't believe his training was comparible to UK police training.
Don't forget that he was successful when he didn't alert as well as when he did.
What? Eddie didn't alert so he was successful?Eddie farted rainbows too don’t you know?
Eddie farted rainbows too don’t you know?
According to what we read in the press and TV. It would be interesting to see the evidence he was convicted on...was it just his alleged confession to another prisoner....more evidence against CB it would seem.
Right there with Morse and Grime, as you would know if you read the link I provided.
No there isn’t.
so what evidence is there against Stone...It seems just the testimony of a friend. Did he have any previous...no
I think you need to read up on the case before we can discuss it.
correct me if im wrong...what evidence is there against him....apart from the alleged confession. i don't particularly want to discuss it.
A circumstantial case was made against Stone. He was suspected because of previous offending. I think it’s now widely accepted that he’s not guilty of the murder of the Russells. Brueckner, as things stand now, is in the same boat.
With the dog alerts and anomalies in their statements a circumstantial case could also have been made against the parents, if their had been the will.
Dog alertrs are BS and not admissible....
We know they're not admissable... but neither are they BS (as you and the FBI and forensic scientists all know!!). They lead CSI's to areas where they may find evidence of a crime. In the case of MM they led to the collection of "human cellular material".
Wow. Human Cellular Material found in a place occupied by humans.
More specifically a crime scene, where something could be learned from such material.
More specifically a crime scene, where something could be learned from such material.
And if the FSS couldn't actually identify the "human cellular material" then you do have to question their credentials somewhat.I think it was Perlin who pointed out with a very small sample ..you cannot do both...if you DNA analyse that's it.
But wasn't.
But wasn't.
We know they're not admissable... but neither are they BS (as you and the FBI and forensic scientists all know!!). They lead CSI's to areas where they may find evidence of a crime. In the case of MM they led to the collection of "human cellular material".
Technology has moved on and the ineptitude of the FSS in this case, imo, doesn't need to be the end of the road for the DNA analysis. The FSS found it "inconclusive" but other forensic scientists may very well now be able to obtain conclusive results.I think they may have evidence which makes that dna unimportant...like images of maddie after she was abducted
And if the FSS couldn't actually identify the "human cellular material" then you do have to question their credentials somewhat.
That was on the shelf, but what about the wall where Eddie seemed to alert IMO. Was keela shown that?I think that he actually alerted to the wall, fairly high up, but I admit that I haven't rechecked. Too tired.
Yes Eddie alerted at the wardrobe and Keela was put inside.
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article14141172.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
Yep, but what about the wall where I think Eddie alerted, was Keela lifted up to that to have a sniff?
If she wasn't then he probably didn't alert to a wall. He may have had his head up;
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
If she wasn't then he probably didn't alert to a wall. He may have had his head up;
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Given thta statement wheres all the tangible evidence thta should have been found from eddies barking
Madeleine was not in the apartment long enough for any cadaver scent to be left there. Whatever Eddie was barkig at it was not the gases emitted from a body.
I realise taht ...but if the bark is given when tangible evidence is present...wheres's the tangible evidence....or is this just another of grimes own contradictions which imo futher questions the validity of the alerts .....just too many contradictions.
I realise taht ...but if the bark is given when tangible evidence is present...wheres's the tangible evidence....or is this just another of grimes own contradictions which imo futher questions the validity of the alerts .....just too many contradictions.Only in the 5% that are false positive alerts. The other 95% of the time he was spot on.
Only in the 5% that are false positive alerts. The other 95% of the time he was spot on.
Only in the 5% that are false positive alerts. The other 95% of the time he was spot on.
thats in laboratory controlled tests...not in apartmnet 5a or Jersey...scientifically you cannot extrapolate that...And in his training exercises.
the question was that eddie ...according to grimes statement supplied by gunit this morning...doesnt bark at remnant scent...only when tangible evidence is present.
And in his training exercises.
OK he was trained with "tangible evidence", I must have missed the "doesnt bark at remnant scent" bit.
the question was that eddie ...according to grimes statement supplied by gunit this morning...doesnt bark at remnant scent...only when tangible evidence is present.I just love it when I find you are wrong.
I realise taht ...but if the bark is given when tangible evidence is present...wheres's the tangible evidence....or is this just another of grimes own contradictions which imo futher questions the validity of the alerts .....just too many contradictions.
I just love it when I find you are wrong.
Grime said "The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent."
So that clearly means the dog Eddie alerts even in places where there is just remaining scent.
Scent of What? And don't tell me it had to be Cadaver Scent.Ask Martin Grime as it is his words we are debating.
I just love it when I find you are wrong.
Grime said "The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent."
So that clearly means the dog Eddie alerts even in places where there is just remaining scent.
....read my post again and what youve just posted. Eddie alerts to remnant scent...but doesnt bark...he holds his head in the air.
its you who is wrong not me
Now you're being the fool. "The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified." Eddies first alert in 5A was at the wardrobe where we all have heard him bark.
He held his head up and barked. He alerted.
I havent mnetioned the wardrobe...you are so intent on trying to prove me wrong you are making mistakes.It is Grime's words we are debating. The "first alert" as we know from watching the video was at the wardrobe. You don't have to mention the wardrobe but the quote from Grime said "the first alert". Where was that at?
My point is that according to Grime eddie doesnt bark at remnant scent..he alerts by raisng his head in the air...he only barks when tangible evidence is present...so where is the tangible evidence
Ask Martin Grime as it is his words we are debating.
It is Grime's words we are debating. The "first alert" as we know from watching the video was at the wardrobe. You don't have to mention the wardrobe but the quote from Grime said "the first alert". Where was that at?
You might be debating something different...I havent mentioned the alert in the wardrobe...my point is re what gunit pisted re alerts when no tangible e vidence is present...G-unit used the reference I gave. In there it explains Eddie's alerts. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It is Grime's words we are debating. The "first alert" as we know from watching the video was at the wardrobe. You don't have to mention the wardrobe but the quote from Grime said "the first alert". Where was that at?
"according to Grime eddie doesnt bark at remnant scent..he alerts by raisng his head in the air...he only barks when tangible evidence is present" That is your incorrect interpretation of what Grime said. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
It's not incorrect..it's precisely what Grime has saidCut a paste the section then, Either that or this debate stops here for your lack of citation. Cite the part that proives your position.
It is Grime's words we are debating. The "first alert" as we know from watching the video was at the wardrobe. You don't have to mention the wardrobe but the quote from Grime said "the first alert". Where was that at?
"according to Grime eddie doesnt bark at remnant scent..he alerts by raisng his head in the air...he only barks when tangible evidence is present" That is your incorrect interpretation of what Grime said. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
G-unit used the reference I gave. In there it explains Eddie's alerts. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You see if your view can be taken directly from the words Grime uses. I bet you can't.
What did he smell? He was called back into the bedroom, he wouldn't have bothered with the bedroom at all if Grime hadn't called him back. He then IMO give a desperate alert to something, maybe from where the clothes had been stored, could have been urine on children clothes or blood on something that had been there. Other families had stayed in 5a after the McCann's.Who knows, but he alerted. He held his head up and barked as he was trained to do.
You might be debating something different...I havent mentioned the alert in the wardrobe...my point is re what gunit pisted re alerts when no tangible e vidence is present...you are obviously confused
G-unit used the reference I gave. In there it explains Eddie's alerts. It is you who is confused. https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
You see if your view can be taken directly from the words Grime uses. I bet you can't.
Who knows, but he alerted. He held his head up and barked as he was trained to do.
Grimes words..
f she wasn't then he probably didn't alert to a wall. He may have had his head up;
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So grime is clearly saying where only remnant scent is present...eddie doesnt alert by barking...he laerts by raising his head...It couldnt be any clearer...but you find it hard to admit you are wrong...eddie does not bark at remnant scent...according to grime
You might be debating something different...I havent mentioned the alert in the wardrobe...my point is re what gunit pisted re alerts when no tangible e vidence is present...you are obviously confused
Please don't accuse someone of being confused. It adds nothing to the discussion. I am confused, let alone those less informed than I am.
I think Rob is disrupting the thread whilst desperately trying to prove me wrong when i'm absolutely right. As he said he loves proving me wrong...hes making it too personalG-unit also says you have mis-interpreted what Grime said.
Grimes words..
f she wasn't then he probably didn't alert to a wall. He may have had his head up;
The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
So grime is clearly saying where only remnant scent is present...eddie doesnt alert by barking...he laerts by raising his head...It couldnt be any clearer...but you find it hard to admit you are wrong...eddie does not bark at remnant scent...according to grime
"The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent."
So the first alert was near the wardrobe in the parent's bedroom. As the dog's head was in the air Grime concluded he had scented no tangible evidence (no body, blood or other forensic material). He scented cadavour oudour only.
"The second alert was one where a definitive area was evident. The CSI dog
was therefore deployed who gave specific alert indications to specific areas...
when he's gone behind the sofa what I saw was that approximately in the centre of the wall where the window is, just along the tile area between the tiles and the wall, he's been scenting there a lot stronger than he has anywhere else and the when he's gone out there the second time he has decided yes that's what I'm looking for and that's when he has given me the bark indication."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Yes Eddie alerted at the wardrobe and Keela was put inside.Eddie did NOT alert in the wardrobe, as the posts above prove using Martin Grimes words. Where is the evidence that Keela was shown the area by the wall that Eddie alerted to and which was too high for her to reach ?
(https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article14141172.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/0_Madeleine-McCann.jpg)
Eddie did NOT alert in the wardrobe, as the posts above prove using Martin Grimes words. Where is the evidence that Keela was shown the area by the wall that Eddie alerted to and which was too high for her to reach ?I tend to agree with PF on this one. Eddiealerted in the general area, but Keela didn't locate a particular spot to sample from. So grime says it was a smell in the region only not some residual material.
There isn't any proof, is there, cos it didn't happen, did it?
So Eddies apparent alert wasn't checked by Keela at all
Please don't use this false argument again Pfinder. There's a dear
Eddie did NOT alert in the wardrobe, as the posts above prove using Martin Grimes words. Where is the evidence that Keela was shown the area by the wall that Eddie alerted to and which was too high for her to reach ?
There isn't any proof, is there, cos it didn't happen, did it?
So Eddies apparent alert wasn't checked by Keela at all
Please don't use this false argument again Pfinder. There's a dear
The footage proves that Eddie alerted inside that wardrobe! Without a Keela blood alert a cadaver dog handler would suggest that Eddie was alerting to cadaver odour and IF there was a body that is where it was. The dog is trained to find the source of the scent. The first alert by the cadaver dog at the crime scene was inside that wardrobe.
So you are saying they put Madeleine in the wardrobe? Stupid place to put her when the Police were searching everywhere.That would be correct if the police were searching at the same time.
The footage proves that Eddie alerted inside that wardrobe! Without a Keela blood alert a cadaver dog handler would suggest that Eddie was alerting to cadaver odour and IF there was a body that is where it was. The dog is trained to find the source of the scent. The first alert by the cadaver dog at the crime scene was inside that wardrobe.
No, Grime clearly says "the first alert". He clarifies what an alert is; "the only two places where he picks up enough scent to give me the bark alert are in this bedroom, in this corner where he was barking."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
-snip-.
"The first alert was given with the dogs head in the air without a positive area
being identified. This is the alert given by him when there is no tangible
evidence to be located only the remaining scent."
So the first alert was near the wardrobe in the parent's bedroom. As the dog's head was in the air Grime concluded he had scented no tangible evidence (no body, blood or other forensic material). He scented cadavour oudour only.
-snip-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
No, you are wrong PFinder. Gunit found the following from Grimes reports. I am surprised that you missed them tbh.At least you admit the dog alerts are robust.
and
There you go, Pfinder, in the air near the wardrobe. As we all saw, Eddies nose was really high and way beyond any level that Keela could have reached.
Please desist from spreading misinformation. It is such a waste of time having to disprove this mis-info., which becomes dis-information when knowingly repeated.
And it so lets you down when you keep knowingly repeating propaganda that is wrong.
At least you admit the dog alerts are robust.
At least you admit the dog alerts are robust.But Sadie is picking it was cadaver odour from the ashes of a long deceased owner of the apartment.
the only fact is that the dog barkedBaphomet bless 'em too. Finding all those dead / alive people, drugs, guns, etc by barking, or standing still, as trained.
But Sadie is picking it was cadaver odour from the ashes of a long deceased owner of the apartment.That's next level and even surpasses the 'Golden Jacobean Lineage' theory.
That's next level and even surpasses the 'Golden Jacobean Lineage' theory.Grime had not trained his dogs well enough for them to name the source of the cadaver odour.
Baphomet bless 'em too. Finding all those dead / alive people, drugs, guns, etc by barking, or standing still, as trained.
Amazing, but we have been training dogs for 15,000 years (not me personally, Eleanor maybe), so it's no wonder we managed to hone in on their specific abilities.
Grime had not trained his dogs well enough for them to name the source of the cadaver odour.
Theres absolutely no doubt the dogs will find cadaver or cadaver odour if its there ...with a reliabilty of 95 % ..the problem arises if its not there...thats why grime and every other expert says the alerts need to be confirmed with physical evidenceTo have any possibility of naming the victim.
Grime had not trained his dogs well enough for them to name the source of the cadaver odour.'WOOF, WOOF......Susan, aged 76, heavy smoker, died of WOOF lung cancer in '99. WOOF. WOOF. Family WOOF decided to bring her WOOF ashes to a shabby holiday let in Praia De Nowhere WOOF and stick them WOOF in the cupboard'. 'WOOF. They locked the back door though WOOF'.
he hasnt shown to an acceptable scientific standard that the alerts are to cadaver odourHave your read Casella's most recent paper on the subject?
To have any possibility of naming the victim.
Have your read Casella's most recent paper on the subject?
I have. But my laptop died and I can't be arsed looking for it again.
'WOOF, WOOF......Susan, aged 76, heavy smoker, died of WOOF lung cancer in '99. WOOF. WOOF. Family WOOF decided to bring her WOOF ashes to a shabby holiday let in Praia De Nowhere WOOF and stick them WOOF in the cupboard'. 'WOOF. They locked the back door though WOOF'.And you'd have Cockney Rhyme issues as well. e.g "Dog and bone" means "telephone".
no...that isnt true...please dont make things up and present them as facts. Physical evidence to confirm the alert is to cadaver odour...anybody's.But I'm still right too. DNA evidence will give you a " possibility of naming the victim". Don't be too harsh on me please. (I even corrected your spelling.)
But I'm still right too. DNA evidence will give you a " possibility of naming the victim". Don't be too harsh on me please. (I even corrected your spelling.)
the remains are to confirm the alerts...they will of course provide evidence to name the victim...you corrected my typing....not my spellingProvided the DNA has not decomposed too much. I wonder if a victim has ever been identified following the analysis of samples found at a site alerted to by a cadaver dog?
the remains are to confirm the alerts...they will of course provide evidence to name the victim...you corrected my typing....not my spellingThat's pretty metaphysical. Is a mis-typed word misspelled? If we use the example of 'autocorrect', it doesn't discriminate, it just provides the correct spelling. But if the user knows it's mis-typed and knows the correct spelling, then from their point of view it's right, but to the onlooker it's wrong.
he hasnt shown to an acceptable scientific standard that the alerts are to cadaver odour
I think you put too much faith in science. Not all science is exact and not all scientists are objective.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150512-can-we-trust-forensic-science
he hasnt shown to an acceptable scientific standard that the alerts are to cadaver odourHe does know his dogs aren't infallible.
He does know his dogs aren't infallible.
it needs more than grimes opinion...it needs evidence...robust evidenceLook, even then it wouldn't meet your standard IMO.
Look, even then it wouldn't meet your standard IMO.
then if you cant provide a cite I cant critically examine it...thats a scientific principle...I suspect it may not even existIt does, but it took about 4 minutes to find last time; 4 minutes I simply do not have at the moment, I'm typing crap on the internet.
It needs to meet scientific standards..not my standardsAre they definable. Grime would already claim his standard was scientific. 95% accurrate.
It does, but it took about 4 minutes to find last time; 4 minutes I simply do not have at the moment, I'm typing crap on the internet.
Are they definable. Grime would already claim his standard was scientific. 95% accurrate.
I thought you were a scientist...of course they are definable...Grime is not a scientist and has no scientific qualifications..hes a dog handlerThat is a bit harsh. He could start off as a dog handler and work his way up to become a dog scientist.
And you'd have Cockney Rhyme issues as well. e.g "Dog and bone" means "telephone".It's an interesting premise; but you would have to attempt to consider this from the perspective of an, I'm assuming, highly trained, somewhat anthropomorphised, sentient canine, trained, kept and worked against it's will, despite it's remonstrations to its captor and, given it's apparent ability to elucidate this, one would then have to consider how accurate an alert may be in those circumstances (pressed men and all that, albeit, in this case, pressed canine). With this in mind, then consider how disposed the dog would be to be in a stable state of mind to want to voluntarily engage in slang of any kind, given it's repressed circumstance.
That is a bit harsh. He could start off as a dog handler and work his way up to become a dog scientist.
That is a bit harsh. He could start off as a dog handler and work his way up to become a dog scientist.I think we can safely state that he is preeminent in his field and his advice / talents / dogs are much sought after.
I think we can safely state that he is preeminent in his field and his advice / talents / dogs are much sought after.
yes ..hes a well decent dog handler..Indeed.
I think we can safely state that he is preeminent in his field and his advice / talents / dogs are much sought after.He definitely tried to make it more scientific. Davel must be able to remember the so called "white paper" he authored.
He definitely tried to make it more scientific. Davel must be able to remember the so called "white paper" he authored.
hes trying...the white paper was merely a summation of the present position...no proper science yetHe published something around March for the university he's affiliated to.
He published something around March for the university he's affiliated to.
I'm looking now.
It's behind a paywall.
thanks... I would like to see it
It's behind a paywall.Thanks.. I've already said if there's a body the dogs will find it...as they did here
Here's the preamble: https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2019/10/25/SP492-2017-337.abstract
...the dogs showed 'interest' prior to the grave being discovered - at 150ppb!
Thanks.. I've already said if there's a body the dogs will find it...as they did hereThis isn't the one I was referring to, but it similar and may even be the same case.
This isn't the one I was referring to, but it similar and may even be the same case.
But Dr. Casella, probably the preeminent scientist in this and associated fields, is happy to endorse the use of cadaver dogs as a viable method to detect cadaverine / putriscine (at minuscule levels), in criminal and subsequent forensic investigations - i.e. by definition, he's endorsing the method as scientifically robust - the dogs are trained in various ways, using various substances as a suitable facsimile of a cadaver (piglets, et al).
I totally agree with everything you have said..but he's not supportive of incorporated alerts being used as evidenceI agree with that.
I totally agree with everything you have said..but he's not supportive of incorporated alerts being used as evidence
From that link discussed above:
"Abstract
Police in the UK received information that a person had been reported as missing. Despite a diligent search and investigation, the person was not found. Several years later police received intelligence giving the location of a grave believed to contain the remains of the person previously reported as missing and now believed to be a victim of homicide. This new information suggested the missing person had been murdered and their remains were buried in a shallow, unmarked grave. Following a systematic search, the murder victim's body was found at a shallow depth, less than 1 m. Following the forensic recovery of the body, soil samples were collected at, beneath the floor of the grave, along the strike of the grave, downslope and upslope. Analysis of the soil samples showed elevated levels of putrescine, at nearly 150 ppb in the soils beneath, downslope and for several metres upslope from the body at localities where detector dogs had showed an ‘interest’ before the grave was discovered. The mineralogical analysis, using integrated automated mineralogy and petrology detected the presence of diagenetic calcite in the soil profile beneath the grave. Additionally, the organic analysis detected the presence of elevated stanols at the grave and down slope."
Some new words for me:
"diagenetic calcite"
"stanols" and "Stanol Ester"
Esters. Esters are polar molecules, but their boiling points are lower than those of carboxylic acids and alcohols of similar molecular weight because there is no intermolecular hydrogen bonding between ester molecules. ... Acids have unpleasant smells, but esters have fruity smells.
"diagenetic calcite" seems to form during the process of rock formation. No mention of odour production.
It could be that the cadaver dog smells a combination of cadaverine/putresciene and stanol esters to give a species specificity to their work.
Thanks.. I've already said if there's a body the dogs will find it...as they did here
Obviously a body will not be at the crime scene 3 months later when the dogs inspect it *%87
Obviously a body will not be at the crime scene 3 months later when the dogs inspect it *%87
Have you read what Harrison said about bringing in the dogs.The White Paper published in 2018 by Staffs University?
This was basically a new approach by Grime and Harrison...it's in Grimes white paper which I doubt you have read
The White Paper published in 2018 by Staffs University?
Have you read what Harrison said about bringing in the dogs.
This was basically a new approach by Grime and Harrison...it's in Grimes white paper which I doubt you have read
If there was a body it could be many miles away 3 months later. No dog would find it. It is up to the investigators to find where a body could be.Why would a dog not be able to find a body that was many miles away from the location that the death took place?
The dog would have to be searching in the right location. Obviously a dog searching in PDL could not find a body if it is many miles away 3 months later.
The dog would have to be searching in the right location. Obviously a dog searching in PDL could not find a body if it is many miles away 3 months later.Excuses, excuses.
Excuses, excuses.You are being deliberately difficult aren't you. If a body has been transported between two or more locations, the cadaver dog may pick up that the cadaver was once at that location, but only the investigators will show how the body moved between the locations.
You are being deliberately difficult aren't you. If a body has been transported between two or more locations, the cadaver dog may pick up that the cadaver was once at that location, but only the investigators will show how the body moved between the locations.No, I was being wry. You just don’t get me Robbity so I suggest you ignore me, it will cause you less angst.
No, I was being wry. You just don’t get me Robbity so I suggest you ignore me, it will cause you less angst.I'm a moderator here so I'll hardly ignore you especially if you're being wry.
I'm a moderator here so I'll hardly ignore you especially if you're being wry.
wry
adjective
1.
using or expressing dry, especially mocking, humour.
"a wry smile"
Similar:
ironic
sardonic
satirical
mocking
scoffing
sneering
I'm a moderator here so I'll hardly ignore you especially if you're being wry.I’m still waiting for a warning for being wry and writing “excuses, excuses”. Surely that’s against forum rules?
wry
adjective
1.
using or expressing dry, especially mocking, humour.
"a wry smile"
Similar:
ironic
sardonic
satirical
mocking
scoffing
sneering
I’m still waiting for a warning for being wry and writing “excuses, excuses”. Surely that’s against forum rules?
Are you sure you want to own up to being wry?Yes and I want to own up to being the Devil Incarnate too. Please add “wry” to my list of crimes against humanity, thanks.
"Wry" evolved from a meaning of "to twist". Applied to humor, it refers to humor that is bitterly or disdainfully ironic or amusing; distorted or perverted in meaning; warped, misdirected, or perverse; words that are unsuitable or wrong; scornful and mocking in a humorous way--it covers a lot of territory
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/384686/what-is-the-difference-between-wry-and-dry-humor
Is being ironic against forum rules thenBeing sarcastic definitely is - I’ve had a warning for it before so I would suggest reporting any instances of sarcasm you see on the forum going forward, irony is probably frowned on too, and as for wryness, well I wouldn’t risk it if I were you....
Being sarcastic definitely is - I’ve had a warning for it before so I would suggest reporting any instances of sarcasm you see on the forum going forward, irony is probably frowned on too, and as for wryness, well I wouldn’t risk it if I were you....It would be a matter of recognising wryness. I had to look up the meaning of the word for a starter.
Excuses, excuses.
No need for any excuses. The dogs alerted in 5A.But was it anything to do with Madeleine McCann? That is the question not answered by the test results so far.
No need for any excuses. The dogs alerted in 5A.But that wasn’t what I was commenting on (wryly).
It would be a matter of recognising wryness. I had to look up the meaning of the word for a starter.
The definition I found suggests a post that's bitter abd twisted, scornful, mocking or perverse.Now go and read my post which I described as “wry” and tell me if you think it could be described by any of the definitions you’ve selected.
Now go and read my post which I described as “wry” and tell me if you think it could be described by any of the definitions you’ve selected.
You described it as wry, but you'd have to explain why, I'm afraid.Wow. 5 posts from moderators in the last 24 hours deliberating on my use of the word "wry" to describe my own post. You can tell things have hit rock bottom and there's nothing else to discuss.
Wow. 5 posts from moderators in the last 24 hours deliberating on my use of the word "wry" to describe my own post. You can tell things have hit rock bottom and there's nothing else to discuss.
and now I have to explain myself.
I used the word "wry" to give you something to talk about, some ammunition against me, a reason to give me a warning.
There, will that do now?
Perhaps one of those pedants * amongst us would like to start a new thread to discuss English grammar and anything else along those lines which takes their fancy.
I am riveted ** to everything 'doggie' as in 'dogs don't etc etc' on this thread ... and really object to it being taken Off Topic.
* pedant
/ˈpɛd(ə)nt/
Learn to pronounce
noun
plural noun: pedants
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
"the royal palace (some pedants would say the ex-royal palace)"
Similar:
dogmatist
purist
literalist
formalist
doctrinaire
precisionist
perfectionist
quibbler
hair-splitter
casuist
sophist
fault-finder
caviller
carper
nitpicker
pettifogger
precisian
Dryasdust
** rivet
/ˈrɪvɪt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: riveted; past participle: riveted
1.
join or fasten (plates of metal) with a rivet or rivets.
"the linings are bonded, not riveted, to the brake shoes for longer wear"
2.
hold (someone or something) fast so as to make them incapable of movement.
"the grip on her arm was firm enough to rivet her to the spot"
Similar:
fixed
rooted
frozen
unable to move
motionless
unmoving
immobile
stock-still
as still as a statue
as if turned to stone
attract and completely engross (someone).
"he was riveted by the newsreels shown on television"
Similar:
fascinated
engrossed
gripped
captivated
enthralled
intrigued
spellbound
rapt
mesmerized
transfixed
fascinating
gripping
engrossing
very interesting
very exciting
thrilling
absorbing
captivating
enthralling
intriguing
compelling
compulsive
spellbinding
mesmerizing
hypnotic
transfixing
unputdownable
Opposite:
bored
uninterested
boring
dull
direct (one's eyes or attention) intently.
"all eyes were riveted on him"
Similar:
fixed on
fastened on
focused on
concentrated on
pinned on
locked on
directed at
Origin
Why do you crave warnings?Masochist tendencies innit. Punish me baby, punish me, I LOVE it.
That would be correct if the police were searching at the same time.
When are they supposed to have put Madeleine in the wardrobe? I am confused you see, if Gerry found Madeleine behind the sofa and decided to whiz off to hide her somewhere on the beach, to collect later, or to take her to a freezer to collect later, why put her in the wardrobe first? Some say she was in the bag in the wardrobe, but that was photographed in the wardrobe later on so that can't be true.
Its all confusing..
The full case IMO is surrounded in secrets and lies.
Also, if she was put in a bag in the wardrobe then why did he take her out of the bag to carry her corpse uncovered through town? Surely carrying a bag is less suspicious than a child's corpse, especially when you're just about to go on TV to tell the world that the child whose body you've been carrying is missing.
When are they supposed to have put Madeleine in the wardrobe? I am confused you see, if Gerry found Madeleine behind the sofa and decided to whiz off to hide her somewhere on the beach, to collect later, or to take her to a freezer to collect later, why put her in the wardrobe first? Some say she was in the bag in the wardrobe, but that was photographed in the wardrobe later on so that can't be true.
The apartment was unattended for large periods of time. We don't know if a body was in the wardrobe, we certainly don't know who it was. When it was put there or by whom.
When are they supposed to have put Madeleine in the wardrobe? I am confused you see, if Gerry found Madeleine behind the sofa and decided to whiz off to hide her somewhere on the beach, to collect later, or to take her to a freezer to collect later, why put her in the wardrobe first? Some say she was in the bag in the wardrobe, but that was photographed in the wardrobe later on so that can't be true.
When are they supposed to have put Madeleine in the wardrobe? I am confused you see, if Gerry found Madeleine behind the sofa and decided to whiz off to hide her somewhere on the beach, to collect later, or to take her to a freezer to collect later, why put her in the wardrobe first? Some say she was in the bag in the wardrobe, but that was photographed in the wardrobe later on so that can't be true.
Just playing devils advocate and I don't suggest this is what happened but some McCann sceptics might believe the death occurred before they went to the Tapas Bar on May 3rd. MM's body may then have been placed (out of sight) in the cupboard while a clean up took place in the apartment.It was there that night when the PJ arrived and took photos around 2:00 - 3:00 AM but IMO isn't there the next day.
McCann supporters on the other hand might say Eddie was alerting to someone's Grandad's ashes or dirty nappies or maybe but maybe not alerting to blood from a nosebleed that might or might not have happened.
What time was this tennis bag photographed in the wardbrobe? Why wouldn't it be back there in either scenario above?
The apartment was unattended for large periods of time. We don't know if a body was in the wardrobe, we certainly don't know who it was. When it was put there or by whom.
What body in what wardrobe Rob and Lace too ?When I say "body" I mean "body in a suitcase/bag".
Grime made it clear that Eddie alerted outside the wardrobe NOT in it.
Imo opinion it was at a scent on the wall, quite high up. Well beyond Keelas ability to reach it.
Grime thinks that Eddie alerted in the corner near the wardrobe, but having watched the video several times , I think that it was more likely above a previous bedside table, where is likely Tasmin Silences Grandpas ashes were stored in an urn.
According to Grime, Eddie did not alert in the wardrobe, but fairly high up outside. Keela only checked inside the wardrobe and not the corner or wall outside. So soz, guys, we shall never know what Eddie was alerting to, cos' Keela sniffed the wrong place.
What body in what wardrobe Rob and Lace too ?
Grime made it clear that Eddie alerted outside the wardrobe NOT in it.
Imo opinion it was at a scent on the wall, quite high up. Well beyond Keelas ability to reach it.
Grime thinks that Eddie alerted in the corner near the wardrobe, but having watched the video several times , I think that it was more likely above a previous bedside table, where is likely Tasmin Silences Grandpas ashes were stored in an urn.
According to Grime, Eddie did not alert in the wardrobe, but fairly high up outside. Keela only checked inside the wardrobe and not the corner or wall outside. So soz, guys, we shall never know what Eddie was alerting to, cos' Keela sniffed the wrong place.
Just playing devils advocate and I don't suggest this is what happened but some McCann sceptics might believe the death occurred before they went to the Tapas Bar on May 3rd. MM's body may then have been placed (out of sight) in the cupboard while a clean up took place in the apartment.
McCann supporters on the other hand might say Eddie was alerting to someone's Grandad's ashes or dirty nappies or maybe but maybe not alerting to blood from a nosebleed that might or might not have happened.
What time was this tennis bag photographed in the wardbrobe? Why wouldn't it be back there in either scenario above?
It doesn't even have to be Madeleine, it could be anybody. Now that someone like Christian B is involved, a serial offender, it is anyone's guess as to what he could have done prior abducting Madeleine.
I was being sarcastic Sadie, there are some who say Madeleine was in the bag in the wardrobe.
It doesn't even have to be Madeleine, it could be anybody. Now that someone like Christian B is involved, a serial offender, it is anyone's guess as to what he could have done prior abducting Madeleine.He could have swapped a live one for a dead one, you mean?
I don't believe for one minute that Madeleine could have died before the McCann's went to dinner. Gerry was out playing tennis!! They laughed and joked right the way through dinner Jeremy said Gerry sounded normal when he chatted to him, they could never have acted like that if Madeleine was dead in the apartment.
Judging by their numerous TV appearances they were extremely good at controlling their emotions. I have seen so many families break down, even years after a tragedy; but not the McCanns.
Total claptrap imo...Claptrap? That's somewhat disingenuous to those families G-Unit referred to. Try some compassion for once, for goodness sake.
He could have swapped a live one for a dead one, you mean?He wanted "a young live one" didn't he? It wouldn't be necessary for him to actually enter the apartment either. As long as it was found by someone and ended up in a bag that ends up in the McCann's apartment. The bag is later removed by whoever put it there.
He wanted "a young live one" didn't he? It wouldn't be necessary for him to actually enter the apartment either. As long as it was found by someone and ended up in a bag that ends up in the McCann's apartment. The bag is later removed by whoever put it there.It could work. It could actually work.
That makes more sense than to think Christian B put it there, abducted Madeleine and then later returned to retrieve the bag. Anything is possible though as no one will be thinking straight if they were involved in something like this.
It could work. It could actually work.It has been the theory I've been working on ever since I joined the forum, is it 5 or 6 years ago now [no it has only been 4 years, "Joined July 09, 2016"]. Two things that have come along that have kept it alive. This Christian B thing fits into it, but the one that makes me super excited is that picture of Christian B with the long hair, as Jez Wilkins reported seeing a long haired male there on the night.
It has been the theory I've been working on ever since I joined the forum, is it 5 or 6 years ago now [no it has only been 4 years, "Joined July 09, 2016"]. Two things that have come along that have kept it alive. This Christian B thing fits into it, but the one that makes me super excited is that picture of Christian B with the long hair, as Jez Wilkins reported seeing a long haired male there on the night.
Where did this photomontage come from that Brietta posted on the Goncalo Amaral thread? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11381.msg612531#msg612531(https://cdn1.cmjornal.pt/images/2020-06/img_370x209$2020_06_27_11_06_53_952728.jpg)CMjournal might be a clue.
In that article GA states that Christian B had long hair at the time.
Well we have not actually seen that footage as yet. Can you get some sort of link to it?
Sky news have just aired video footage of Brueckner dated 5 weeks before Maddie disappeared.
Brueckner wasn't sporting blonde dreadlocks. Sorry to disappoint you as I know you were super excited.
Well we have not actually seen that footage as yet. Can you get some sort of link to it?
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-filmed-during-road-trip-five-weeks-before-she-disappeared-12039845How reliable is the date of that footage? To me it looks like the hair has been recently cut as there is very little sun bleaching.
How reliable is the date of that footage? To me it looks like the hair has been recently cut as there is very little sun bleaching.
There seems to be a major contradiction between what Amaral is say and this undated footage.
This was filmed around April 2007 just before Madeleine disappeared. There is an exact date somewhere which I think can be confirmed because the three people he volunteered to transport were taking part in a competition organised by a radio station.I have found that memories aren't infallible. Had a date stamp appeared on the footage or if the footage was forensically examined and the metadata showed the "recorded date" I might not be so sceptical. That all depends on the date being set into the videocam in the first place.
No cartoon characters painted on the van either.
I have found that memories aren't infallible. Had a date stamp appeared on the footage or if the footage was forensically examined and the metadata showed the "recorded date" I might not be so sceptical. That all depends on the date being set into the videocam in the first place.Snip
I have found that memories aren't infallible. Had a date stamp appeared on the footage or if the footage was forensically examined and the metadata showed the "recorded date" I might not be so sceptical. That all depends on the date being set into the videocam in the first place.
This was filmed around April 2007 just before Madeleine disappeared. There is an exact date somewhere which I think can be confirmed because the three people he volunteered to transport were taking part in a competition organised by a radio station.So Amaral was l̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ mistaken again.
No cartoon characters painted on the van either.
So Amaral was l̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ mistaken again.It is a concern.
It is a concern.Why? He’s been at it for years so only to be expected imo.
It is a concern.It's only a concern if it's:
It's only a concern if it's:It's a concern as to his reliability as a source of information. He obviously isn't
- true
- you care
It's a concern as to his reliability as a source of information. He obviously isn'tDid you check box 2?
Did you check box 2?
He has said many things that are simply not true...these things are then used to support the guilt of the McCanns.
Judging by their numerous TV appearances they were extremely good at controlling their emotions. I have seen so many families break down, even years after a tragedy; but not the McCanns.
In my opinion none more so than the misinformation regarding the dog alerts which he perpetuates to the present day.
He claims amongst other things that the dogs have never been wrong in 200 cases...that isnt true but people believe him. If it was true then I would be calling for the McCanns to be investigated and arrested. He needs to do as gunit suggested...check the source of his information he accepts as being true. its a basic principle which he cant seem to grasp.He might be right. Did he even say that? Do you have a reference I could read for that?
https://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-suspect-christian-b-filmed-during-road-trip-five-weeks-before-she-disappeared-12039845
Isn't this a dog evidence thread?Yes it is. Let's keep it on topic, guys.
Isn't this a dog evidence thread?I'm actually pinning my hopes on that glorious looking Malinois finding something to pin on CB; another cache of filth or something - keep the beast locked up for as long as possible.
He might be right. Did he even say that? Do you have a reference I could read for that?
Is there some issue with the dog alerts now? Did I miss a memo?
This was filmed around April 2007 just before Madeleine disappeared. There is an exact date somewhere which I think can be confirmed because the three people he volunteered to transport were taking part in a competition organised by a radio station.
No cartoon characters painted on the van either.
A pal suggested Brückner could help.
Why would someone with his history be so generous as to drive all the way to Malaga to pick up 3 strangers on a €10-a-day budget challenge and take them to Vera?
Was he offloading or picking up drugs at the same time?
Where did he go after he dropped them off?
But,but, but….. it has been repeated many times on these esteemed pages that dog alerts are NOT evidence. In fact on the very thread concerning this issue on this forum one poster postulated that the only reason previous dog alert evidence had been heard in court before was because the judges had erred in allowing them. Wait until the press get hold of this, another judge so untrained in the matters of law that he allows cadaver dog evidence to be heard in court. Surely there will be a mistrial.
(With thanks to Barrier for posting the original story)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56930820
Ask the SCRCC committee... It seems they said although the dog alert should not have, been admitted the rest of the evidence was, enough to convict
Interesting how dog handlers use the same words;
PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".
Mr Kearney went on to ask: "Do you have any doubt of it being a positive indication from your dog in what he is trained to find?"
PC Gunderson: "I have no doubt whatsoever."
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/ayrshire/emma-faulds-murder-trial-hears-24045807
Then there's Grime in the parent's bedroom in 5A;
I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. But strong indication and I would say its positive for things that he is trained to find, which will be part of a separate debrief.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Sigh.
It must be horrible for you to be stuck in the time warp of 2007. So intellectually unstimulating 🙄
Sigh.
It must be horrible for you to be stuck in the time warp of 2007. So intellectually unstimulating 🙄
No need to sympathise, thanks. The past shaped the present and that's why it's relevant. Martin Grime is one of those who shaped the language used by dog handlers in the present.
If it comforts you to think so ... be my guest 🙂
It seems as if you would prefer the past to be forgotten, but it isn't going to happen.The dog alerts in this case were consigned to the dustbin of history by those currently investigating Madeleine's abduction so it would seem you are wrong in this instance.
It seems as if you would prefer the past to be forgotten, but it isn't going to happen.
The dog alerts in this case were consigned to the dustbin of history by those currently investigating Madeleine's abduction so it would seem you are wrong in this instance.
Proper investigation and interpretation by Rebelo's team consigned them to the dustbin of history PDQ.
Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.Says who?
Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.
Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.
Absolutely nothing to do with 'attitudes' and all to do with police doing what they are trained to do which is to observe and evaluate.
Rebelo's team observed the video of the dogs working and alerting and their evaluation consigned it to the dustbin of history as far as evidence was concerned.
I would really like to see the original official police video rather than the one copyrighted by Levy which was bad and bad enough.
Says who?
Courts which have allowed dog handlers to testify as to what their dogs alerted to.
What exactly did the dogs alert to in the absence of Forensics?
That which they have been trained to find.
What exactly did the dogs alert to in the absence of Forensics?
It’s not just the actual alert that is evidence though, the main evidence is the interpretation of the alert by the deemed competent and expert witness, in this case PC Gunderson. He said
PC Gunderson said to him it was "clear" Max was giving "an indication".
Mr Kearney went on to ask: "Do you have any doubt of it being a positive indication from your dog in what he is trained to find?"
PC Gunderson: "I have no doubt whatsoever."
Think of the dog handler giving evidence as akin to a handwriting expert, or a voice recognition expert giving evidence, in that in their opinion the voice or handwriting matches the accused.
There are Dog Handlers and Dog Handlers, some of whom might be more competent than others. But we don't really know do we as we only have their own word for how competent they think they are.
The same for handwriting experts, voice recognition experts, bite mark experts, gait analysis experts and other other types of expert witnesses that give evidence.
But they have to be deemed by the court before giving evidence to be competent and expert in their field.
How does The Court do that? Especially when Expert Witnesses disagree?
How does The Court do that? Especially when Expert Witnesses disagree?
Not good enough I'm afraid. You might as well give up on The Law and leave it to the bark of a dog. Such a pity they can't talk don't you think?
It may not be good enough for you, but your opinion doesn't count.
And sadly nor does yours.
Courts which have allowed dog handlers to testify as to what their dogs alerted to.Courts allow all sorts of unreliable and / or conflicting witnesses to testify so I don't really think it's any sort of validation frankly.
Courts allow all sorts of unreliable and / or conflicting witnesses to testify so I don't really think it's any sort of validation frankly.
Attitudes towards the evidence of dog handlers has changed since 2007. Specifically courts in the USA and Scotland have gradually accepted over time that this evidence can be a useful part of a prosecution case. Cadaver dogs are no longer seen as 'incredibly unreliable', and their alerts are no longer seen as useless without forensic corroberation.So what specific scientific advances have been made in understanding cadaver dog abilities and accuracy in recent years to enable courts to accept something as reliable that was once considered unreliable? There must be a reason why they have changed their minds if what you are saying is correct.
So what specific scientific advances have been made in understanding cadaver dog abilities and accuracy in recent years to enable courts to accept something as reliable that was once considered unreliable? There must be a reason why they have changed their minds if what you are saying is correct.
I think cadaver dog alerts were only considered unreliable by an American judge, a Scottish cardiologist and some ill-informed supporters of the cardiologist.
And an American Dog Handler said that if there is no cadaver odour then dogs will bark at the next best thing like Urine.
Are you sure he wasn't just taking the p*ss ?
I think cadaver dog alerts were only considered unreliable by an American judge, a Scottish cardiologist and some ill-informed supporters of the cardiologist.Ah, I see. So they’ve always been considered reliable. Makes you wonder why they’re not used more widely to decide guilt or innocence doesn’t it? I mean if a dog alerts to a murder suspect’s home / car / effects then that more or less proves he did it right?
Given that only one judge, Gerry and his supporters consider dog alerts unreliable why on earth haven’t the McCanns been rrested and charged and why are the Germans ignoring them? Please explain.
And an American Dog Handler said that if there is no cadaver odour then dogs will bark at the next best thing like Urine.
Which you can, of course, support with a cite.
I think cadaver dog alerts were only considered unreliable by an American judge, a Scottish cardiologist and some ill-informed supporters of the cardiologist.
Which you can, of course, support with a cite.It was Martin Grime’s mate I think, the one who died.
Can you support your American Judge with a Cite?
Of course. When you produce your cite I'll produce mine.
You first. You made the statement first.
Obviously you can't produce a cite so forget it. I'm too old for childish arguments.
Ah, but I can. So you will have to be a bit more careful in future.
Well I would like to hear more about this urine thing, it seems a strange thing for a dog handler to say.
I will give the cite about the American judge so please reciprocate with your cite.
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/09/01/2904811.htm
You are forgetting Grime and Harrison
Interesting. A recent failure for Martin Grime’s dogs in a court of law
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/09/cadaver-dogs-alerted-at-home-of-man-whose-wife-disappeared-8-years-ago-fbi-consultant-says.html
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/09/jury-acquits-cumberland-county-man-accused-of-killing-wife-who-disappeared-in-2012.html
Another interesting piece of writing, from Martin Grime’s own paper, written in 2018
Can’t copy and paste but it’s page 53 of 187 paragraph 7 in which Grime admits that EVRD dogs trained on anything other than cadavers are not up to scratch, and alerts from dogs trained on animal matter first (as Eddie was I believe) must be considered to possibly be alerting to this animal matter or cadaver. Dogs that have been trained on both would not pass muster in a court of law and would easily be discredited.
http://eprints.staffs.ac.uk/4750/1/Forensic%20Canine%20Foundation%20.pdf
Do you really believe that Grime and Harrison believe that cadaver dog alerts are unreliable? Have they ever said they believe cadaver dog alerts to be unreliable? I know they have said they are not evidential but never unreliable.
No evidential reliability
You win some you lose some.It’s a failure for Grime and the dogs because despite being admissable and supposedly reliable the jury rejected their evidence. He clearly failed to convince them that when a dog alerts in the house of the accused it means they murdered someone there.
It would be a failure only if the wife reappeared on a flight from Kyrgyzstan at some point in the future saying “Honey, I’m home”. Let's hope that happens, but let’s see if it does.
He always was a man of contradictions though wasn’t he. Stated multiple times that dog alerts were not evidence but appeared many times in court to give evidence on his dogs alerts.Hence he, the alerts and the science cannot be relied upon to give a straight answer. He basically throws Eddie’s alerts under the bus with that paragraph though doesn’t he?
It’s a failure for Grime and the dogs because despite being admissable and supposedly reliable the jury rejected their evidence. He clearly failed to convince them that when a dog alerts in the house of the accused it means they murdered someone there.
Afaik Grime has never claimed that dog alerts mean a murder was committed. All he claims is that his cadaver dogs are trained to alert to cadaver odour.As Grime was a witness for the prosecution in a murder trial, what inference do you think he was trying to convince the jury that the alerts by his dogs supported?
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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
The prosecutor failed to gather enough corroberating evidence to convince the jury that a murder took place.
Once again, the evidence of the dog handler was deemed admissible as evidence, which was another confirmation that this evidence is seen as worthy of being heard.
That's not the same thing though is it. it doesn't mean they believe the alerts to be unreliable in the way Gerry McCann did.
As Grime was a witness for the prosecution in a murder trial, what inference do you think he was trying to convince the jury that the alerts by his dogs supported?
His role was to testify that his dog alerted to the scent he was trained to alert to. It was the role of the prosecutor to convince the jury what the significance of the alerts was.
Money for old rope then.
Snip
Experts in the U.S. typically are paid on an hourly basis for their services in investigating the facts, preparing a report, and if necessary, testifying during pre-trial discovery, or at trial. Hourly fees range from approximately $200 to $750 or more per hour, varying primarily by the expert's field of expertise, and the individual expert's qualifications and reputation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness#Types_of_expert_witness
Not to mention the time spent working in the field which we know can mount up to quite a lot.
The only thing is that reputation is all and losing cases won't do the bank balance much good in the USA which is hoatching with experts on the doorstep.
Grime gave evidence via a video feed from his home in Oxford. His dogs were used in 2012 when Grime was under contract to the FBI (2010-2013). One of the terms of his contract was to provide expert witness opinion in relation to casework. Consequently he may not have received payment for this testimony imo.
The US may be hoatching with experts, but in the case under discussion Grime was the go-to expert as the dogs were trained and handled by him and they were all under contract to the FBI. As he is no longer active in the US I don't think his income would be affected by anything there. Nor do I think that he lost a case; that was the prosecutor's responsibility.
Grime gave evidence via a video feed from his home in Oxford. His dogs were used in 2012 when Grime was under contract to the FBI (2010-2013). One of the terms of his contract was to provide expert witness opinion in relation to casework. Consequently he may not have received payment for this testimony imo.
The US may be hoatching with experts, but in the case under discussion Grime was the go-to expert as the dogs were trained and handled by him and they were all under contract to the FBI. As he is no longer active in the US I don't think his income would be affected by anything there. Nor do I think that he lost a case; that was the prosecutor's responsibility.
Sorry ... when exactly was the court case?
2020 eight years after the woman disappeared.
I think it means exactly that
So Gerry only thought that they were unreliable from an evidentiary position and the alerts themselves could be positive alerts, because I believe this was Grime’s and Harrison’s opinions. Interesting.
Gerry McCann has no right to an opinion in your opinion? Good one is that.
Gerry has every right to an opinion, I just didn't know this was his opinion. Anyway its more Davel's opinion that Gerry, Grime and Harrison share the same opinion on dog alerts.
Any luck with that cite, you did tell G-Unit that you could produce it?
I would have a word with G Unit if I were you. I'm still waiting for her Cite.
But don't you ever doubt that I can do what I say I can.
G Unit might be a different story. Which it now appears to be.
So Gerry only thought that they were unreliable from an evidentiary position and the alerts themselves could be positive alerts, because I believe this was Grime’s and Harrison’s opinions. Interesting.
What about Harrison's statement... No inference can be drawn from these alerts...
I supplied the cite that you requested from G-Unit, you have it, you read it and responded, you said you could produce yours so please do, I am interested in reading it.
Inference means reaching a conclusion, so they cant conclude that a body was there but IMO they suspect. Grime said in a documentary that he always trusts his dogs alerts.
I don't know if your Cite is the one that I required from G Unit. Did G Unit tell you to do this? Or is there more than one Judge who suspects that Cadaver Dogs are not reliable?
My Cite is available on The Internet. Go and look for it, as I had to do.
Just don't try to take the piss out of me. I am not a lot of fun when this happens.
Inference means reaching a conclusion, so they cant conclude that a body was there but IMO they suspect. Grime said in a documentary that he always trusts his dogs alerts.
Grime also said this -
Handler Martin said the dogs' sensitive noses could have been picking scents from long before the McCanns stayed at the apartment or used the car.
I supplied the cite that you requested from G-Unit, you have it, you read it and responded, you said you could produce yours so please do, I am interested in reading it.
Yes they could, or they could be wrong and there was no cadaver scent there at all, or Martin Grime cued the dog. There are lots of possibilities.
If it went to court (it won't) IMO he would take the position of the recent Scottish case where the PC testified on his dogs alert.
No, I did not say that I would produce my Cite. Are you incapable of understanding plain English? Could as opposed to would.
I said that I have a Cite. But you appear to have missed the point. Ask G Unit for her Cite regarding The Judge who thinks that Cadaver Dogs are unreliable.
But you see, this is the point. Some Judges aren't all that happy with Cadaver Dog Evidence and I don't think G Unit wants to open that can of worms, hence her failure to produce her own Cite.
I personally and as a Moderator am thoroughly fed up with ridiculous demands for Cites, mostly from persons who themselves fail to produce what they themselves demand.
Now would be good time to stop doing this.
Merci Beaucoup and How's Your Father.
This is what an ex Police Officer had to say -
Swindells said cadaver dogs can make mistakes when hunting for "the scent of death". In Maddie, Swindells said an alert that cadaver dog Eddie had made on Madeleine's favourite soft toy, Cuddle Cat, appeared unusual and was "bullshit".
I tend to agree with Swindells on Cuddle cat, there is a good chance he thought it was a toy to play with. But Swindells has never came out and said Eddies search of the Car or Apartment is bullshit though has he.
Personally I don't think Madeleine would have been in 5a long enough to leave the scent of death. No gas escapes the dead body in the first stage of decomposition. As to the car I find that absolutely ridiculous, imagine the state of the body after that long!! There would be a very strong scent that humans would smell.
His role was to testify that his dog alerted to the scent he was trained to alert to. It was the role of the prosecutor to convince the jury what the significance of the alerts was.He clearly failed to convince the jury then, because if he had convinced them that the accused’s house was rife with cadaver odour, undoubtedly the verdict would have been different. IMO.
Hence he, the alerts and the science cannot be relied upon to give a straight answer. He basically throws Eddie’s alerts under the bus with that paragraph though doesn’t he?Doesn’t he?
“No, I did not say that I would produce my Cite. Are you incapable of understanding plain English? Could as opposed to would.”
So you can produce it but just won’t?
I believe the cite I produced was the one G-Unit was referencing but maybe she can confirm this and then if this satisfies you that it is indeed the judge she was referring to you can provide your available cite that you won’t provide.
Gracias.
Got it. No, I won't. I will not be told to produce a Cite when my adversary has refused to answer her initial accusation without a Cite.
You believe that the Cite you produced was the one that G Unit was referring to? How do you know that?
Oh, and nor do I take kindly to being accused of lying or playing games. For which I require an apology.
Never push me too far. And Too Far has been gone.
Doesn’t he?
“No, I did not say that I would produce my Cite. Are you incapable of understanding plain English? Could as opposed to would.”
So you can produce it but just won’t?
I believe the cite I produced was the one G-Unit was referencing but maybe she can confirm this and then if this satisfies you that it is indeed the judge she was referring to you can provide your available cite that you won’t provide.
Gracias.
I have politely asked you for the cite, not told. I am prepared to wait until G-Unit confirms or denies this was the judge she was referring to.
I have never accused you of anything, please point out where this occurred and I will apologise profusely.
I do believe you have the cite but just won’t give it to me for some reason that I can't work out.
Do you not think that this is a problem between G Unit and me? And probably best left to her and I?
Perhaps you don't understand the dynamics, but you can't fight the battles of another person. We have all been at for far too long.
I am just not having anyone making a statement without a Cite and then demanding a Cite from me for my reply. This has to be ridiculous.
You all might never see my Cite, especially as I am not known for my research. But when shite comes to bust don't doubt me. I don't lie or twist things to suit myself. What would be the point?
You did indeed find the correct cite, but I very much doubt that you'll get the cite you want in return, because imo there is no such thing.Thanks G-Unit, I thought it would be the one.
Interestingly, the judge would have considered allowing the handler's evidence to be heard but the three dogs used had a very poor record;
the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/09/01/2904811.htm
Yes he does, I agree. But if you read through the gist of the paper, he is advocating to allow human remains in test conditions in the UK to improve the capabilities of the dogs to find purely human remains and not animal(ie. pig). But maybe his thinking is flawed as he testified that dogs trained on human remains in the USA also alerted to pig remains. I don’t believe he is wrong to push this angle as I can see being trained on the thing you are expecting to find is preferable to a quasi substitute.Thank you for your reply. I think we can now state categorically (can we not?) that the dog alerts in 2007 were completely worthless from any legal point of view, and have since been consigned to the dustbin of history by the dog handler himself on the basis that Eddie trained on animal matter and therefore the alerts could not be considered wholly reliable.
You did indeed find the correct cite, but I very much doubt that you'll get the cite you want in return, because imo there is no such thing.
Interestingly, the judge would have considered allowing the handler's evidence to be heard but the three dogs used had a very poor record;
the dogs were incorrect 78 percent of the time for one dog, 71 percent for another and 62 percent for a third. He said they had to be right just over half of the time in order for him to consider allowing the testimony.
https://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2007/09/01/2904811.htm
So the judge wasn't rejecting testimony by all cadaver dog handlers, just by these handlers whose three dogs had a really poor record.
Thank you for your reply. I think we can now state categorically (can we not?) that the dog alerts in 2007 were completely worthless from any legal point of view, and have since been consigned to the dustbin of history by the dog handler himself on the basis that Eddie trained on animal matter and therefore the alerts could not be considered wholly reliable.
I am fighting no-ones battles. I am interested to hear more about this dog handler. Nothing more nothing less.
As a moderator you say you have the evidence but won't supply it to me because you are in an argument with G-Unit, isn't it the rules that claims have to be backed up with a cite? Anyone else can give me it I don't mind
Tell that to G Unit. This is what the argument was all about. Don't demand a Cite when you are not prepared to give a Cite yourself.
But, I'll tell you what, this stupid, never ending demand for ridiculous Cites will end.
I will give a cite for anything you want. Ask away. Why is it ridiculous? I thought it was the rules? If I am being unreasonable please tell me the etiquette for requesting cites and I will comply.
Did you not understand what I said? Don't ask for a Cite. I am quite happy with Your Opinion. But you see, G Unit made a statement without a Cite and then demanded a Cite from me. After that G Unit accused me of lying. This is beyond hypocrisy.
But this isn't going to happen again.
No, as I said Mr Grime is a master of contradiction, he has also said that he always trusts his dogs alerts. Dog alerts have always included the possibility of pig alerts as it seems the scent is similar. That won't change with human remain training IMO.I don’t think he has contradicted his position, just corrected it, and since Eddie not used dogs trained on animal matter to try and locate remant human cadaver scent because he knows that otherwise the alerts can be (rightly IMO) called into question. I think his quote proves this.
So the etiquette is don't ask for a cite. Thanks for clearing it up for me.
Best not to ask for a Cite actually, because you could be found wanting yourself one day. It is mostly a can of worms anyway and God knows who thinks what.I’ve had to ask G-Unit for the same cite multiple times until I think she was hoping I’d give up. I have tried to find your cite for you but so far without much luck but I have uncovered some other interesting snippets in the meantime.
I don’t think he has contradicted his position, just corrected it, and since Eddie not used dogs trained on animal matter to try and locate remant human cadaver scent because he knows that otherwise the alerts can be (rightly IMO) called into question. I think his quote proves this.
I’ve had to ask G-Unit for the same cite multiple times until I think she was hoping I’d give up. I have tried to find your cite for you but so far without much luck but I have uncovered some other interesting snippets in the meantime.
Moving on from silly arguments, I think it's clear that testimony by dog handlers is just as admissible as any other testimony and can and should be used as evidence in the courts.
But Grime and Harrison say no evifential reliability or value... Prof Cassella who has written several scientific papers is equally dismissive
Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are not taken by police officers or professors.
But Grime and Harrison say no evifential reliability or value... Prof Cassella who has written several scientific papers is equally dismissive
Decisions about the admissibility of evidence are not taken by police officers or professors.
Yet we hear of court cases which contradicts them. Wolters you constantly tell us has evidence of Madeleine's death,
whats to say its not these pesky dogs, he's never revealed what he has.
Grime contradicts himself... If you think Wolteers is relying on the alerts you haven't followed what he has said
Its not what he said that matters, I've read on here.It's what he has said that matters and if you are relying on what has been posted here for your knowledge of what he has said then you have serious gaps in your knowledge
The value of the evidence is
The value of evidence is decided by those who choose which evidence in include in a case.Do you accept that based on what Grime himself has admitted (in a report he wrote years after the alerts in PdL) that they have no evidential value as Eddie was trained on animal matter? It’s unlikely that any prosecutor would call him as an expert witness to stand by those alerts given what he has subsequently written, agreed?
Do you accept that based on what Grime himself has admitted (in a report he wrote years after the alerts in PdL) that they have no evidential value as Eddie was trained on animal matter? It’s unlikely that any prosecutor would call him as an expert witness to stand by those alerts given what he has subsequently written, agreed?
Before we continue this discussion concerning The White Paper written by Martin Grime in 2018 can I ask you, have you read it all? From page 1 to page 187?I have skim read it up until the part I drew attention to. If I have misunderstood his meaning feel free to correct me.
Because there is an inherent danger that by cherry picking 2 or 3 sentences from a 187 page document that you may have taken these sentences out of context to confirm a belief that you may hold.
I have skim read it up until the part I drew attention to. If I have misunderstood his meaning feel free to correct me.
I rather feel you may have. Did you wonder why Mr Grime would want to tarnish all his work in his whole career with a couple of throw away sentences in an obscure white paper? The reason - he doesn't. Who would?I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph, rather he acknowledges the need for training dogs solely on human cadaver scent, not a mixture of human and animal cadaver scent as his earlier dog(s) were, when it comes to the issue of alerts to residual scent with no body present and how they may stand up in court.
As its late I will try to put it into a clear concise form tomorrow, the white paper does jump around and as you know no copy and paste.
I don’t know enough about the chemistry to say how long a body would have to lay, I know tests were done with fully grown adults but never I believe with small children. And there was a smell in the car that humans could smell wasn’t there but whether a corpse was there I don’t know.As far as I can find there has only ever been one published piece of research on this issue which demonstrated that the earliest a dog would alert after death was 85 minutes, however this was atypical (the majority were between 2 and 3 hours) and also the tests were not conducted at a three month interval from the scent being deposited and the dogs alerting. As this is obviously quite a relevant issue as far as residual scent and dog alerts are concerned, it amazes me that there has apparently not been more research done on it since the late 90s. What Grime’s alerts to the apt 5a would have you believe is either that Madeleine was dead before the McCanns went out to dinner (which raises one set of implausible scenarios) of that the dog’s nose was so incredibly sensitive that it would detect a very few brief minutes of cadaver odour from three months earlier (with no actual testing or research to back this up as a possible scenario).
As far as I can find there has only ever been one published piece of research on this issue which demonstrated that the earliest a dog would alert after death was 85 minutes, however this was atypical (the majority were between 2 and 3 hours) and also the tests were not conducted at a three month interval from the scent being deposited and the dogs alerting. As this is obviously quite a relevant issue as far as residual scent and dog alerts are concerned, it amazes me that there has apparently not been more research done on it since the late 90s. What Grime’s alerts to the apt 5a would have you believe is either that Madeleine was dead before the McCanns went out to dinner (which raises one set of implausible scenarios) of that the dog’s nose was so incredibly sensitive that it would detect a very few brief minutes of cadaver odour from three months earlier (with no actual testing or research to back this up as a possible scenario).
If you are referring to this study;Yes, that’s the study. Don’t you find it concerning or at least puzzling that in over twenty years there does not appear to have been any follow up research in this matter? Anything’s a possibility until one examines the rest of the known facts IMO. You may think you can pull together a plausible and logical theory that centres around the scenario of Madeleine’s earlier death but I don’t think you can. The fact that no police force has considered it a real possibility surely tells you something?
http://www.csst.org/cadaver_scent.html
the dogs were alerting to gauze pads placed onto the abdominal area of bodies for 20 minutes. The study was therefore unable to discover whether the dogs would have alerted earlier to the site where a whole body had lain.
The idea that Madeleine may have died before her parents went to dinner on 3rd May is a possibility, no matter how implausible some find it.
I don’t know enough about the chemistry to say how long a body would have to lay, I know tests were done with fully grown adults but never I believe with small children. And there was a smell in the car that humans could smell wasn’t there but whether a corpse was there I don’t know.
The value of evidence is decided by those who choose which evidence in include in a case.
Do you accept that based on what Grime himself has admitted (in a report he wrote years after the alerts in PdL) that they have no evidential value as Eddie was trained on animal matter? It’s unlikely that any prosecutor would call him as an expert witness to stand by those alerts given what he has subsequently written, agreed?
I rather feel you may have. Did you wonder why Mr Grime would want to tarnish all his work in his whole career with a couple of throw away sentences in an obscure white paper? The reason - he doesn't. Who would?
As its late I will try to put it into a clear concise form tomorrow, the white paper does jump around and as you know no copy and paste.
Yes, that’s the study. Don’t you find it concerning or at least puzzling that in over twenty years there does not appear to have been any follow up research in this matter? Anything’s a possibility until one examines the rest of the known facts IMO. You may think you can pull together a plausible and logical theory that centres around the scenario of Madeleine’s earlier death but I don’t think you can. The fact that no police force has considered it a real possibility surely tells you something?
I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph, rather he acknowledges the need for training dogs solely on human cadaver scent, not a mixture of human and animal cadaver scent as his earlier dog(s) were, when it comes to the issue of alerts to residual scent with no body present and how they may stand up in court.
Dogs vary quite a bit in their abilities, training and success rates, particularly in the US. Research can only tell us about the performance of the dogs used in a study, it can't really claim to apply to all dogs working in the field as cadaver dogs.
In Amaral's book he shares Encarnacio's theory that Madeleine died when her father was speaking with Jes Wilkins. Interestingly, Rebelo's reconstitution would have covered the group's movements from 5.30pm to 11pm. Obviously he was interested in the period between 5.30pm and 8.35pm.
You resolutely ignore the fact that Operation Grange was set up for the purpose of investigating an abduction, so the fact that they are investigating that is hardly surprising.
Again I think you are wrong... Imo Grange was set up after the review showed abduction was the most likely scenario and the remit does not limit the investigation to other possibilities
For that very reason its possible why its not been solved.
Yes, someone said there was an 'unpleasant'. smell in the car due to bags of nappies being stored for the dump. Though the smell of a corpse wouldn't be 'unpleasant'. it would be pungent ,choking, unbearable smell after that length of time.
For that very reason its possible why its not been solved.
I think it has been solved in as much that Maddie was abducted and murdered
I think it has been solved in as much that Maddie was abducted and murdered
Haven't seen anything regarding that from SY.
Someone saying something doesn’t make it a fact that the smell was from nappies, meat, shrimp or anything. The smell was bad enough to be washed out with water and the boot allegedly needed to be left open all night due to the smell. If there was only light transference of cadaver odour then would that be as unbearable as you suggest? Martin Grime actually says he doesn’t mind the smell of human decomposition, says it’s like a sweet putrid smell.
As you have bolded the word entire I assume you hold the opinion he has only tarnished some parts of his career. Which bits are tarnished and which remain unblemished. Genuine questionIt was you who introduced the concept of Grime tarnishing his entire career in one paragraph, I merely pointed out that in the paragraph in question Grime acknowledges that dogs trained on both animal and human cadaver scent (like Eddie was) give alerts that can (rightly IMO) be called into question wrt to their reliability in court. You suggested last night that owing to my not reading the document in its entirety from start to finish that I have misundertstood or misquoted or misrepresented this paragraph so perhaps you could now put me right, thanks.
Ive read the white paper and a couple of points stand out to me.
Grime starts by saying that in 2005 he collabortated with Harrison in some out of the box thinking re gathering intelligence in homicide and abduction cases. this seems to me it was grime who came up with the whole idea of residual scent as intelligence...note he does not say evidence.
Grime says the only reliable alert can be given by a dog solely trained on human tissue...therefore questioning the reliability of any dog not trained on human tissue.
Grime says that the alert can be corroborated by anectdotal evidence....this is a real about turn as to what he said in Luz. I have seen nothing from Harrison or Cassella that agrees with this...remember these are Grimes colleagues.
In the white paper grime says the dogs will not alert to teeth...another massive contrdiction from what he has previosly said....remember Jersey
Again I think you are wrong... Imo Grange was set up after the review showed abduction was the most likely scenario and the remit does not limit the investigation to other possibilities
It was you who introduced the concept of Grime tarnishing his entire career in one paragraph, I merely pointed out that in the paragraph in question Grime acknowledges that dogs trained on both animal and human cadaver scent (like Eddie was) give alerts that can (rightly IMO) be called into question wrt to their reliability in court. You suggested last night that owing to my not reading the document in its entirety from start to finish that I have misundertstood or misquoted or misrepresented this paragraph so perhaps you could now put me right, thanks.
Dogs vary quite a bit in their abilities, training and success rates, particularly in the US. Research can only tell us about the performance of the dogs used in a study, it can't really claim to apply to all dogs working in the field as cadaver dogs.Obviously the period of time in the days and hours leading up to a disappearance will be of interest to any investigating police force, it's a leap to suggest however that Rebelo gave serious consideration to the possibility that Madeleine died before the McCanns left for dinner - it's clear from the final report that that possibility was never seriously considered by the PJ IMO
In Amaral's book he shares Encarnacio's theory that Madeleine died when her father was speaking with Jes Wilkins. Interestingly, Rebelo's reconstitution would have covered the group's movements from 5.30pm to 11pm. Obviously he was interested in the period between 5.30pm and 8.35pm.
You resolutely ignore the fact that Operation Grange was set up for the purpose of investigating an abduction, so the fact that they are investigating that is hardly surprising.
And you responded with the answer "I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph,"Just what I said, I couldn't be any clearer if I tried. Yesterday I said he through Eddie's alerts under the bus with that paragraph and you seemed to agree, have you now changed your mind?
I am just curious about what you meant by this
Obviously the period of time in the days and hours leading up to a disappearance will be of interest to any investigating police force, it's a leap to suggest however that Rebelo gave serious consideration to the possibility that Madeleine died before the McCanns left for dinner - it's clear from the final report that that possibility was never seriously considered by the PJ IMO
"In a final synthesis, based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:
- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy - like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established - headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep";
And you responded with the answer "I disagree that he tarnishes his entire work with one paragraph,"
I am just curious about what you meant by this
I think Grimes contradictions... Which we have in writing... Raise concerns as to his reliability as a witness
Just what I said, I couldn't be any clearer if I tried. Yesterday I said he through Eddie's alerts under the bus with that paragraph and you seemed to agree, have you now changed your mind?
Whatever the PJ thought, one of the purposes of the reconstitution was to discover;And why to do you think the police thought that reconstituting Kate and Gerry's movements in the apartment prior to leaving the apartment at 8.30pm would have revealed anything of significance? Do you think the police thought the McCanns might helpfully role play the handing out of sedatives, the sudden death of the child and the hatching of the plan as part of the reconstitution? Absolute nonsense.
4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
You could be a little bit clearer as I'm none the wiser what you mean when you bolded the word entire, but never mind.I told you why I bolded the word "entire" because that was your word, which I'm sure you used facetiously, or if not were certainly putting words into my mouth. I hope you're not going to ask me why I bolded the word "your" now.
As I explained in my answer yesterday this is the problem with reading a couple of sentences and taking them out of context. I have now read the entire paper and have indeed changed my mind.
That's because Woltets hasn't shared his evidence
But you agree though that his opinion is uncorroborated dog alerts can be used in court as evidence?Not and a blanket statement... No. There use has been very limited.. Once in Scotland it seems.. Where as I understand thr SCRCC said they should not have been admitted and never in England.
Saves his embarrassment.LOL
Operation Grange was set up as an investigative review, whose initial purpose was intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. The purpose was to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter.
https://www.met.police.uk/foi-ai/metropolitan-police/disclosure-2018/november/information-operation-grange/
The remit was written before the review began, and it's clear that abduction was mentioned as a fact before any work was done.
.
Not and a blanket statement... No. There use has been very limited.. Once in Scotland it seems.. Where as I understand thr SCRCC said they should not have been admitted and never in England.
As I understand the alerts area new type of evidence... 2005...and have been used in a few cases in the US.
I don't think that establishes then as acceptable evidence
The point I'm making is Grime hasn't been consistent... In Luz he said they couldn't... He's now changed his mind... I think that rsises questions about his opinions credibility
"Not and a blanket statement... No"
So you still believe Grime's opinion is that uncorroborated dog alerts cant be used as evidence even though you just read his own paper where he says they could?
Three times in Scotland at least. I have never claimed they have been used in England.
As asked before a long time ago, what reason did the SCRCC use to form this opinion, inadmissible? quality of evidence? which test cases did they use to form this opinion?
New evidence is still evidence.
What is your definition of a few, 3,5,10.20,50?
The point I'm making is Grime hasn't been consistent... In Luz he said they couldn't... He's now changed his mind... I think that rsises questions about his opinions credibility
Thank you for the admission that he has now changed his mind.
You can't really use him any more in your list of experts that believe that alerts are not evidence to be used in court though really can you? What about Harrison? what has he really said on the matter?
I told you why I bolded the word "entire" because that was your word, which I'm sure you used facetiously, or if not were certainly putting words into my mouth. I hope you're not going to ask me why I bolded the word "your" now.
Tell us why you think Grime isn't saying what (IMO) he is very clearly saying in that paragraph.
ETA - I just read back your original post and you didn't use the word "entire" you used the word "all" so my apologies but pretty much the same difference, unless you want to get bogged down in another argument over semantics.
As you know this a white paper, white papers are mostly used to achieve “ proof of concept” going forwards in an organisation or quango. This white paper concerns how the training of dogs could be improved.Really, unless you've discovered something in this text which states Grime's' opinion that despite acknowledging that Eddie alerting to both humans and animal matter, his alerts in PdL can be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour then I don't really see what more you can add which alters the thrust of my original point.
The aim of the document is forward looking and not the past. Of course the ideal situation is to use human remains to train dogs rather than animal remains, after all as he mentions we don't train explosive detection dogs on household cleaning materials but on explosives.
Things have obviously moved on since 2007 and he points out on page 132 that they have trained dogs to discriminate between humans and pigs. So if this is the case, here and now in the present a dog trained solely in this manner would be an improvement on a dog that alerts to both humans and pigs as did Eddie in 2007 and in fact all dogs trained in Europe up to now due to the ruling (2004) on the use of human remains. We have to accept that Eddie and all European dogs will alert to humans and pigs but he would like a situation going forward where the evidence is more robust, where dogs are only trained on human remains hence he ventures the ideas outlined in pages 129-145 concerning scent pads and STU units to train dogs and pages 146-151 concerning Forensic Cemetery Research Facilities as he concedes on page 95 that it is unlikely that there will ever be a situation where you could legally acquire human remains for the purpose of training dogs.
More to follow
It's not an admission I've stated it several times Herrison hasn't given a further opinion.. Prof Casella has... And he is dismissive of uncorroborated alerts
You just can't say it can you? Grime has changed his opinion and uncorroborated dog alerts can be heard in court. You say this raises questions about his credibility. I say he is smart enough to see himself giving evidence of uncorroborated dog alerts and realises that his opinion in Luz was wrong. He would be an abject fool if he didn’t change his opinion after appearing several times himself, wouldn’t he?
Really, unless you've discovered something in this text which states Grime's' opinion that despite acknowledging that Eddie alerting to both humans and animal matter, his alerts in PdL can be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour then I don't really see what more you can add which alters the thrust of my original point.
It seems to rest on what 'corroboration' means. In my opinion it can mean enough circumstantial evidence to make the previous presence of a dead body more likely than not.
This bit is pertinentI’m sorry but an alert by a cadaver dog trained to find dead humans that might have actually been an alert triggered by a dead pig cannot be considered reliable, no matter how you choose to read it. Otherwise you have simply comfirmed thst my original reading of the paper was absolutely correct.
“his alerts in PdL can’t be taken as wholly reliable indicators of human cadaver odour”
They can’t, I agree. They can’t be wholly reliable as solely human remains as they could be human or pig.
If we accept that fact, as we all have, with Eddies alerts and in fact all European dog alerts then nothing has changed. He would just like a situation where the pig could be eliminated from the alert. This would make much more robust evidence in a court. I have the feeling I won’t convince you but I have read all the document and when you read all of it and put it into context he is really not saying he doesn’t believe that his past alerts are unreliable just that he accepts they could be human or pig.
I’m sorry but an alert by a cadaver dog trained to find dead humans that might have actually been an alert triggered by a dead pig cannot be considered reliable, no matter how you choose to read it. Otherwise you have simply comfirmed thst my original reading of the paper was absolutely correct.
But this is not new news is it, everyone knows that European dogs will alert to both.There’s no need to patronise me. I do have the context of the whole work, I understand what you are saying, what I take issue with is the concept that a dog that could be alerting to either human cadaver or pig cadaver can be relied upon with no supporting forensic evidence to have been alerting to human cadaver and not pig cadaver. This being the case, the dog alerts in PdL cannot be said to be reliable. Grime acknowledges this. I don’t see how you could possibly argue otherwise frankly.
This is a bit like doing a book dissertation where I have read the whole book and you have read a few sentences. You don’t really have the context of the whole work.
There’s no need to patronise me. I do have the context of the whole work, I understand what you are saying, what I take issue with is the concept that a dog that could be alerting to either human cadaver or pig cadaver can be relied upon with no supporting forensic evidence to have been alerting to human cadaver and not pig cadaver. This being the case, the dog alerts in PdL cannot be said to be reliable. I don’t see how you could possibly argue otherwise frankly.
I am sorry you feel patronised, not sure why you do. The investigators would surely look at the probabilities that a pig carcass was present at any time compared to a person who is missing. Its all evidence.
Why a pig carcass... Why not a small piece of decomposing pork.. Or in Eddie case a tiny remnant of blood
I am sorry you feel patronised, not sure why you do. The investigators would surely look at the probabilities that a pig carcass was present at any time compared to a person who is missing. Its all evidence.. A pig carcass need no have been present though need it? What about, for example, shoes that had been walked through an abbatoir, a shirt that had been worn by a butcher, trousers worn by a farmer, a t-shirt that had been worn by a chef making some culinary delicacy invloving pig blood or skin? The possibilities for cross-contamination are even greater than from human cadaver (which could also be transferred from those in the medical profession, morgue workers, law enforcement etc) and so basically making the alerts worthless without forensic corroboration. I feel patronised because you are claiming superior understanding of the paragraph of Grime’s paper I highlighted based on your reading of the entire paper, but I think I fully grasped what Grime was saying in that section thank you, all without your supposedly greater insight. You have not been able to shine a light on anything that I misunderstood or altered the meaning of, have you?
That would be for the investigators to weigh up and decide what they believed the source to be.And if they were unable to, what then?
I’m sorry but an alert by a cadaver dog trained to find dead humans that might have actually been an alert triggered by a dead pig cannot be considered reliable, no matter how you choose to read it. Otherwise you have simply comfirmed thst my original reading of the paper was absolutely correct.
. A pig carcass need no have been present though need it? What about, for example, shoes that had been walked through an abbatoir, a shirt that had been worn by a butcher, trousers worn by a farmer, a t-shirt that had been worn by a chef making some culinary delicacy invloving pig blood or skin? The possibilities for cross-contamination are even greater than from human cadaver (which could also be transferred from those in the medical profession, morgue workers, law enforcement etc) and so basically making the alerts worthless without forensic corroboration. I feel patronised because you are claiming superior understanding of the paragraph of Grime’s paper I highlighted based on your reading of the entire paper, but I think I fully grasped what Grime was saying in that section thank you, all without your supposedly greater insight. You have not been able to shine a light on anything that I misunderstood or altered the meaning of, have you?
You have not been able to shine a light on anything that I misunderstood or altered the meaning of, have you?OK, try again - what have I misunderstood? What have I misrepresented?
I thought I wouldn't.
I think such an alert in a farmyard might be difficult to interpret, less so in an apartment.So in your opinion the only possible location for pig cadaver odour to linger is in a farmyard is it?
And if they were unable to, what then?
It's not an admission I've stated it several times Herrison hasn't given a further opinion.. Prof Casella has... And he is dismissive of uncorroborated alerts
If there was significant doubt by the handler then they wouldn't use the evidence I would suggest.How would a handler know whether the dog was alerting to pig or human cadaver? Do the dogs give an extra wink and a wag when it’s human?
How would a handler know whether the dog was alerting to pig or human cadaver? Do the dogs give an extra wink and a wag when it’s human?
Could you link me to Harrisons statement regarding evidence. Is it in the PJ files?
Yes the files
I am not a dog handler so I don't know. I think it would as G-Unit says the location of the alert would make it more likely in the opinion of the dog handler to be human rather than pig .All these cases that hear dog evidence, the people who are the victims have never re-appeared after a court case as far as I am aware. Perhaps you know of a case?I’m sorry but that just won’t do. You have claimed “investigators”,would decide what the dog alerted to, then you say it’s down to the handler to decide if it was human cadaver or pig products? It’s all very inexact isn’t it, and well unreliable, when there isn’t a shred of evidence to back it up isn’t it? Going back to my original point, Grime seems to have acknowledged that dogs trained on pigs and humans cannot be relied upon to be giving correct alerts to human cadavers, and IMO it’s likely that since PdL, prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs, in order to make that particular line of defence redundant.
I’m sorry but that just won’t do. You have claimed “investigators”,would decide what the dog alerted to, then you say it’s down to the handler to decide if it was human cadaver or pig products? It’s all very inexact isn’t it, and well unreliable, when there isn’t a shred of evidence to back it up isn’t it? Going back to my original point, Grime seems to have acknowledged that dogs trained on pigs and humans cannot be relied upon to be giving correct alerts to human cadavers, and IMO it’s likely that since PdL, prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs, in order to make that particular line of defence redundant.
Which file?
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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Pages 2836 to 2839 under summary
"prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs, in order to make that particular line of defence redundant."Talk about deliberately mistquoting!! Could you please highlight the whole sentence I wrote not just a part of it as you did, and thus significantly changing what I wrote, thank you.
If you had read all of Mr Grime's white paper you would know this isn't true or indeed possible.
OK thanks for that, I read that bit before but it doesn't really mean that a dog alert is not admissible as evidence in a court of law. It means he himself doesn't belief that the conclusion is that a cadaver has been in the location.
He doesn't expressly comment that this evidence can't be used in a court of law does he?
I’m sorry but that just won’t do. You have claimed “investigators”,would decide what the dog alerted to, then you say it’s down to the handler to decide if it was human cadaver or pig products? It’s all very inexact isn’t it, and well unreliable, when there isn’t a shred of evidence to back it up isn’t it? Going back to my original point, Grime seems to have acknowledged that dogs trained on pigs and humans cannot be relied upon to be giving correct alerts to human cadavers, and IMO it’s likely that since PdL, prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs, in order to make that particular line of defence redundant.
It would mean his comment could be used in a court of law
Inference meaning
“a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.”
He could testify that he couldn’t conclude a body was there but he suspected one was.
It certainly doesn’t rule him out of testifying in court on an alert.
Reaching the conclusion that the alert shows that a body may have been there is making an inference.
But the question remains, is there anything that Harrison has stated that would preclude him from giving evidence in a court of law regarding dog alerts, either as an expert witness for the prosecution or the defence?
Is any evidence exact? Eye witness? Handwriting? Voice analysis? Even as Davel says LCN DNA. You don’t get definite I am afraid. It’s not a movie. Grime’s point is and this is the point of the paper that it would be preferable to rule out pigs from the equation going forward from now but it doesn’t invalidate his previous alerts.As you misquoted me I don’t think you’re in any position to tell me that what I wrote was not true or not possible. If alerts from dogs trained on humans and pigs were reliable then why would there be any need to remove pig odour from their training, please explain. Eye witness, handwriting, voice analysis all unreliable I completely agree, and your point is?
Your opinion that prosecutions involving dog evidence having been trained on human cadavers is not only not true or even possible which you would know if you had read all of Mr Grime’s white paper.
As you misquoted me I don’t think you’re in any position to tell me that what I wrote was not true or not possible. If alerts from dogs trained on humans and pigs were reliable then why would there be any need to remove pig odour from their training, please explain. Eye witness, handwriting, voice analysis all unreliable I completely agree, and your point is?
Certainly has for the prosecution but not for the defence. As I recall prof Cassella expressed a similar sentiment in the gilroy caseWhat would preclude him from speaking for the prosecution.
Grime said...
The dogs only alerted to things McCann
Eddies behavior changed as soon as he entered the apartment
Eddie alerted to cuddle cat.....cuddle cat wa s always in kates possession so its difficult to see how it could be contaminated
In his opinion the alerts wer esuggestive of cadaver contamination.
realistically imo ....and alot of others....that has to implicate the mcCanns.
SY say no evidence maddie is dead
wolters says he has evidnce MM was murdered by a paedophile.
If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz
Grime said...
The dogs only alerted to things McCann
Eddies behavior changed as soon as he entered the apartment
Eddie alerted to cuddle cat.....cuddle cat wa s always in kates possession so its difficult to see how it could be contaminated
In his opinion the alerts wer esuggestive of cadaver contamination.
realistically imo ....and alot of others....that has to implicate the mcCanns.
SY say no evidence maddie is dead
wolters says he has evidnce MM was murdered by a paedophile.
If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz
Its a real mess isn't it? IMO no resolution in this case.
What would preclude him from speaking for the prosecution.
i.e. "I can't confirm that a cadaver was ever there but suspect it may have been"
I think there has been some resolution in that Wolters has definitive evidence that MM died at the hands of a paedophile and did not die in 5a
No he says he has real evidence, there is a difference.
I think you may be waiting a while for your conviction of CB. IMO
I did post I think and I didnt mention CB.
from what Wolters has said I think he does have definitive evidence MM died at the hands of a paedophile but not that it was CB.....but some evidence it was CB
he hasnt said he suspects there may have been as that would be making an inference
If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz
Why would Grime put his or dogs reputation on the line if imo he thought Maddie would found alive.
Maddie could have been found anytime a long time ago after the alerts ...but she wasn't.
I did post I think and I didnt mention CB.
from what Wolters has said I think he does have definitive evidence MM died at the hands of a paedophile but not that it was CB.....but some evidence it was CB
An inference is to come to a conclusion , he hasn't come to a conclusion he only suspects.
So you are still sticking that Mark Harrison has expressed the opinion that uncorroborated dog alerts are not evidence to be heard before a court?
It is not true that “prosecutions involvimg dog evidence have involved dogs trained solely on human cadavers, not a mixture of both humans and pigs,” and I repeat it is not possible which you would know if you read the white paper.I’m not answering another one of your posts until you stop misquoting me.
You might not like my answer but its the truth.
You keep commenting on a white paper that you haven’t even read!
They are reliable in the sense that they could be either human or pig.
If you deem all those to be unreliable what do you consider reliable evidence?
a conclusion is ajudgement or decision arrived at through reasoning.....if he thinks that the alerts support the idea that a corpse may have been in 5a then he has made a decision and therefore an inference...and yes...that makes Harrison view taht uncorrobortaed alertss are not evidential...which of course he has said
I’m not answering another one of your posts until you stop misquoting me.
The "think" part was for your opinion that there would be some resolution not the part of Wolters having evidence which was stated as fact.
I thought you believed CB was the man that Wolters suspects, is there someone else you think may be responsible?
A suspicion is not a decision. You have never shown me the statement by Mark Harrison that states that uncorroborated alerts are not evidential. I would love to see it.
Grime said...He will point out that Eddie was trained on pig cadaver and that therefore the alerts were false, but that he now no longer uses dogs trained with pig so his career and livelihood will not be in jeopardy regardless of such an outcome.
The dogs only alerted to things McCann
Eddies behavior changed as soon as he entered the apartment
Eddie alerted to cuddle cat.....cuddle cat wa s always in kates possession so its difficult to see how it could be contaminated
In his opinion the alerts wer esuggestive of cadaver contamination.
realistically imo ....and alot of others....that has to implicate the mcCanns.
SY say no evidence maddie is dead
wolters says he has evidnce MM was murdered by a paedophile.
If it can be shown Wolters is correct I wonder how grime will explain what he said about the alerts in LUz
He will point out that Eddie was trained on pig cadaver and that therefore the alerts were false, but that he now no longer uses dogs trained with pig so his career and livelihood will not be in jeopardy thanks to such an outcome.
He may also said at the time...which he did...as I recall something like no conclusions can be drawn from the alerts as tehy could be due to several different scenarios....or something to taht effectYes, he would obviously need a get out had Madeleine turned up alive subsequently.
Yes, he would obviously need a get out had Madeleine turned up alive subsequently.
Three months after disappearance it was very unlikely maddie would be found alive. As I said it will b einteresting how Grime explains his statements if Wolters does have this evidence...which i think he may well have
As I said it will b einteresting how Grime explains his statements if Wolters does have this evidence...which i think he may well have
Well I doubt grime will be worried in the slightest....or will have to explain himself.
I think you know that too ...so why post these things u no wont happen.
It will be interesting to see your reaction... if wolt doesn't have the evidence that you so so believe he has.
What ...we will have to wait an see...ok then
yes...this is what he said..
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.
If a dog handler is called to give evidence in court the only part of the above which is of interest to the court is "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant." That is his area of expertise, based upon his work in training and handling cadaver dogs. The court would have no interest in his opinions on what that evidence meant, that would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate.The defence would of course manage to elicit the remainder of the quote out of him.
The defence would of course manage to elicit the remainder of the quote out of him.
If a dog handler is called to give evidence in court the only part of the above which is of interest to the court is "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant." That is his area of expertise, based upon his work in training and handling cadaver dogs. The court would have no interest in his opinions on what that evidence meant, that would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate.Do you realise you are giving your opinion
Do you realise you are giving your opinion
Imo you are posting codswallop
Opinion based on observation. In no case brought to trial was the dog handler's evidence the only evidence offered. Other supporting evidence existed.
The quote includes these words; "unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." The prosecution wouldn't ask a dog handler to give his/her evidence unless they had other evidence which they believed corroborated it.
The quote includes these words; "unless they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence." The prosecution wouldn't ask a dog handler to give his/her evidence unless they had other evidence which they believed corroborated it.I was referring more to the cross-contamination bit. And then of course there is the fact that his dog was trained on pig matter. IMO, any defence worth its salt would have had a field day with those alerts.
Someone saying something doesn’t make it a fact that the smell was from nappies, meat, shrimp or anything. The smell was bad enough to be washed out with water and the boot allegedly needed to be left open all night due to the smell. If there was only light transference of cadaver odour then would that be as unbearable as you suggest? Martin Grime actually says he doesn’t mind the smell of human decomposition, says it’s like a sweet putrid smell.
Light transference of cadaver odour???? After that length of time? What are the McCann's supposed to have wrapped Madeleine in? Where was she kept? It's nonsense.Lace, you've not been paying attention. She was supposed to have been kept in a fridge belonging to one of the group's mystery friends who lived in PdL and who didn't mind helping out or having their petit pois nestling up against a child's corpse for a few weeks. Then, when the coast was clear the McCs went to this Mystery Friend's house and asked for the body back, which they then allowed to thaw out on a trip to Huelva (under the curious gaze of film crew and accompanying media). Somehow the McCs managed to smuggle said rapidly defrosting corpse out of the car and into its final resting place all without anyone noticing, but unfortunately by this point the car was full of defrosted bodily fluids and smelt rank so they had to drive home with the windows open and made a big show of airing the car by leaving its boot open when they got home, for all to see. And that my friend is why the dog alerted (though not to the boot where the body and fluids were sloshing about but to the key fob and the door). Hope that all makes sense now.
After three weeks the body would be in stage four -
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67858
Light transference of cadaver odour???? After that length of time? What are the McCann's supposed to have wrapped Madeleine in? Where was she kept? It's nonsense.
After three weeks the body would be in stage four -
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67858
When I mentioned a light transference my thinking was perhaps the secondary transference from personal items such as clothes or a bag or other family items rather than a 3 week old corpse.
But as you bring up the subject of a three week old body what specifically and scientifically would preclude the presence of cadaver odour in a confined space like a car in the instance of a three week old body being introduced into such an environment for an undetermined length of time? Do three week old bodies no longer give off the chemicals and compounds associated with decomposition?
The link you supplied doesn’t really cover it.
I don't suppose you could tell me how The McCanns did that, could you?I think you could ask people to speculate how they might have done that but asking for a definitive answer is asking too much. Really all we have are the alerts by the dogs and a neighbour who saw the car left with the boot wide open for days. You could speculate on this information but it's certainly not conclusive.
I think you could ask people to speculate how they might have done that but asking for a definitive answer is asking too much. Really all we have are the alerts by the dogs and a neighbour who saw the car left with the boot wide open for days. You could speculate on this information but it's certainly not conclusive.
The sooner they re-test the human cellular material found in the apartment and the hire car the better, imo. I believe It's the key to solving this incredibly sad case.
Not sure if you are aware but the Germans have concrete evidence MM was murdered bu CB
I think you could ask people to speculate how they might have done that but asking for a definitive answer is asking too much. Really all we have are the alerts by the dogs and a neighbour who saw the car left with the boot wide open for days. You could speculate on this information but it's certainly not conclusive.
The sooner they re-test the human cellular material found in the apartment and the hire car the better, imo. I believe It's the key to solving this incredibly sad case.
They've been implying that for months. Why no charges, Dave?
They've been implying that for months. Why no charges, Dave?
I think you could ask people to speculate how they might have done that but asking for a definitive answer is asking too much. Really all we have are the alerts by the dogs and a neighbour who saw the car left with the boot wide open for days. You could speculate on this information but it's certainly not conclusive.What could they find specifially in the cellular material that you think would solve this case? I await your answer with baited breath.
The sooner they re-test the human cellular material found in the apartment and the hire car the better, imo. I believe It's the key to solving this incredibly sad case.
What could they find specifially in the cellular material that you think would solve this case? I await your answer with baited breath.
I don't know why you are bothering to ask. There is nothing.I know, it just amuses me to see what nonsense will be forthcoming.
I know, it just amuses me to see what nonsense will be forthcoming.
Well, I'll tell you what. I am going to get a bit shirty in a minute. Demanding Cites and all that rubbish. Oh, and the Libel Thingy. Too much of that going on.
G Unit might think that she can get away with this, but not anymore, despite who she thinks she is.
I don't think anyone can be in any doubt that keeping the usual slurs going as far as the McCanns are concerned just isn't to be tolerated any more.
Particularly when there is no ignorance as to what human rights signify as proven by the vigour of the sceptic defence mounted as far as Brueckner is concerned.
I don't think anyone can be in any doubt that keeping the usual slurs going as far as the McCanns are concerned just isn't to be tolerated any more.
Particularly when there is no ignorance as to what human rights signify as proven by the vigour of the sceptic defence mounted as far as Brueckner is concerned.
I'm allowed to say that in my opinion the McCann's human rights have not been breached, but Brueckner's have. That in no way means that I'm casting slurs on the McCanns or defending Brueckner. I am, in fact, airing my opinion on the actions of Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Court judges, and German prosecutor Wolters.So, if the McCanns had been arrested and charged in 2008 you don’t think Amaral’s book, documentary and tv interviews would have had any bearing on their right to a fair trial? But you do think HCW’s media pronouncements have breached Brückner’s human rights? Can you explain how that works please?
I'm allowed to say that in my opinion the McCann's human rights have not been breached, but Brueckner's have. That in no way means that I'm casting slurs on the McCanns or defending Brueckner. I am, in fact, airing my opinion on the actions of Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Court judges, and German prosecutor Wolters.
And of course others are allowed to feel and post that you are posting absolute rubbish.
When collecting evidence and build a case the police employ the presumption of guilt. No search warrant would ever be granted if the presumption of innocence was absolute.
You claim CB would have a cade under article 6 bit ad far ss I can see are quoting the words of the Portuguese SC to dupport your claim.
Do you have something from the ECHR that confirms this
Your cite at first tslks about expressing opinions... Wolyers may wrll be talking factually that he has evidence that shoes VB murfered MM... So he isnt expressing an opinion.
Could you cite a case from the ECHR where an unfair trial has been ruled due to such statements
The police and prosecutors may presume guilt, they may be convinced they have the guilty person, but they are not allowed to say it because their suspect is entitled to a fair trial.
The police and prosecutors may presume guilt, they may be convinced they have the guilty person, but they are not allowed to say it because their suspect is entitled to a fair trial.Do you have a cite for “not allowed to say they believe they have the guilty person? “
The police and prosecutors may presume guilt, they may be convinced they have the guilty person, but they are not allowed to say it because their suspect is entitled to a fair trial.
The police and prosecutors may presume guilt, they may be convinced they have the guilty person, but they are not allowed to say it because their suspect is entitled to a fair trial.
I am a teensy bit sorry for being so cross. But I can't have these double standards anymore. Either it is fit for all or it is fit for no one.
G Unit may not decide which suits her. Either she support both or she supports neither.
How to get away with murder... gunit style.
First commit the murder.. Then confess. The police then anounce your confession and guilt
Now retract your confession... Say you were pressured into it... And you wont be able to get a fair trial becasuse the police have saud you are guilty... Simple
How to get away with murder... gunit style.
First commit the murder.. Then confess. The police then anounce your confession and guilt
Now retract your confession... Say you were pressured into it... And you wont be able to get a fair trial becasuse the police have saud you are guilty... Simple
How to get away with murder... gunit style.
First commit the murder.. Then confess. The police then anounce your confession and guilt
Now retract your confession... Say you were pressured into it... And you wont be able to get a fair trial becasuse the police have saud you are guilty... Simple
This is your fantasy and is nothing to do with me.Did you not say that the police are not allowed to say their suspect committed the crime?
Did you not say that the police are not allowed to say their suspect committed the crime?
Did you not say that the police are not allowed to say their suspect committed the crime?
I offered no opinion on what could be said following a confession; Davel raised that subject.So is it your opinion that a confession, even one retracted, cancels out the legal reuqirement for police not to say that their suspects are guilty in their opinion?
I offered no opinion on what could be said following a confession; Davel raised that subject.
You made a blanket statement that law enforcement should not make any statements suggesting guilt.. You never said there were exceptions which thete obviously are. You said it was simple.. It isnt.
Do in the Greek case the police have clearly said hes guilty... Pre trial. By your previous statement thats a breach of his HR... You are now backtracking as you reslise its not as simple as you thought
I don't think I've seen a translation of what the Greek police have said. Have you?
I don't think I've seen a translation of what the Greek police have said. Have you?@)(++(*
Are you saying the reports are false....
You really are struggling
I think you need to provide evidence to support your statement that "in the Greek case the police have clearly said hes guilty". Apologies if this evidence has been provided, but I can't find it.Will this do, or will you reject it because it's not a video of him speaking in Greek?
I think you need to provide evidence to support your statement that "in the Greek case the police have clearly said hes guilty". Apologies if this evidence has been provided, but I can't find it.
Will this do, or will you reject it because it's not a video of him speaking in Greek?
“Everything was staged for the crime scene to look like the scene of a robbery,” Costas Hassiotis, director of the greater Athens homicide division told reporters, adding that the suspect had tied his own hands and those of his dead wife.
I see no declaration of guilt. Perhaps the director was quoting from Anagnostopoulos's confession?
“The culprit is her 33-year-old husband who has confessed to the act,” the Greek police tweeted.
I see no declaration of guilt. Perhaps the director was quoting from Anagnostopoulos's confession?then you are blind imo.
Maybe he'll complain, maybe not. It doesn't alter the fact that Wolter's suspect and his lawyer have complained about him.
And it doesn't mean there has been a breach of article 6 ss you claimed... No one disputes he might complain... Hes already complained about several things and got nowhere
I'm allowed to say that in my opinion the McCann's human rights have not been breached, but Brueckner's have. That in no way means that I'm casting slurs on the McCanns or defending Brueckner. I am, in fact, airing my opinion on the actions of Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Court judges, and German prosecutor Wolters.
You are indeed.Heaven forefend that there should be any doubt as to what Gunit’s preferences are when it comes to breaching the McCann’s human rights or defending Brueckner’s ~ it will be interesting to see if the ECHR concur with Amaral, the Portuguese Supreme Court judges and Gunit 😁
From American law but I think this also applies in EU..
https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/personal-injury-and-accidents/false-accusations/
"Also, if your reputation is already damaged by your own previous actions, for example, if you have a public history of crime, and someone accuses you of a crime you did not commit, you cannot argue that you were defamed because your character was already compromised."
You are indeed.
No one would dispute that but gunit claimed it as a fact which it isnt. Shes entitled to hold any opinion she wishes.... However silly it may be
It's a fact that the ECHR takes a dim view of public officials making prejudicial comments about a suspect's involvement in the commision of an offence.He doesn't name anyone in that statement. Also, saying "we have reason to believe Person X has committed the crime" is not unusual for police is it? What's Crimewatch all about when for example they show pictures of named criminals and say this is Joe Bloggs, he is wanted on suspicion of rape, public should not approach him as he is armed and dangerous"?
The Court has held in this context that there may be a breach of the principle of the presumption of innocence on account of prejudicial comments relating to a suspect’s involvement in the commission of an offence made by public officials at a time when judicial investigations were pending against the suspect but before he had been formally charged with the offence in issue
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-141197%22]} number 41
Wolters told 60 Minutes;
"We have strong evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead and that our suspect killed her," Wolters told 60 Minutes.
"We don't have the body and no parts of the body, but we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann."
https://9now.nine.com.au/60-minutes/german-prosecutors-believe-madeleine-mccann-is-dead-60-minutes/c12305de-2465-4751-98ae-e0ba468d8fa3
In my opinion the above statement clearly breaches Article 6:2 of the ECHR.
He doesn't name anyone in that statement. Also, saying "we have reason to believe Person X has committed the crime" is not unusual for police is it? What's Crimewatch all about when for example they show pictures of named criminals and say this is Joe Bloggs, he is wanted on suspicion of rape, public should not approach him as he is armed and dangerous"?
He is saying he has enough evidence to say his suspect killed Madeleine McCann. Not that he is suspected of killing her, he killed her.Sorry, what does the word "suspect" mean in that sentence? Also, the meaning of "evidence" please.
He is saying he has enough evidence to say his suspect killed Madeleine McCann. Not that he is suspected of killing her, he killed her.
I can only see a problem with that statement if he doesnt have the evidence.... Thats one of the reasons why I think he does
He is making a statement which can only be made after a trial and a guilty verdict imo; that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann.
He is making a statement which can only be made after a trial and a guilty verdict imo; that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann.No, what he actually said was:
No, what he actually said was:
"we have enough evidence to say our suspect killed Madeleine McCann" which would be a pretty daft thing to say AFTER a trial in which he is found guilty. Would your worries be assuaged if he had said "we have enough evidence to say IN OUR OPINION our suspect killed Madeleine McCann." Which is what he's saying basically but without adhering strictly to this forum's stringent IMO rules.
If that was true then it could be tested in a trial. The fact that he is delaying such a trial is indicative that his so-called evidence isn't as strong as he would like it to be. In addition, it is protocol to inform the parents of the death and how it occurred, this has not happened because if Wolters is wrong, as I suspect, then he will look really stupid with a large splattering of egg on his face
If that was true then it could be tested in a trial. The fact that he is delaying such a trial is indicative that his so-called evidence isn't as strong as he would like it to be. In addition, it is protocol to inform the parents of the death and how it occurred, this has not happened because if Wolters is wrong, as I suspect, then he will look really stupid with a large splattering of egg on his faceErm, ok but that's not the issue under discussion.
He is making a statement which can only be made after a trial and a guilty verdict imo; that Christian B killed Madeleine McCann.
Wolters has given his reasons for not releasing his evidence and not giving further information to the parents. He has also given his reasons for the delay in charging.
I think the only ones that will end up with egg on their face are those who doubt him
I don't believe him. His words are contradictory and have always been so. Clutching at straws comes to mind.
I don't believe him. His words are contradictory and have always been so. Clutching at straws comes to mind.Do you not think CB fits the profile of someone who might want to take a small child, someone who had the means, motive and opportunity to strike that night? Don’t you think he should be thoroughly investigated leaving no stone unturned for this crime and others in the area? If not why not? If so, then why are you criticizing HCW?
I am involved in a case where I know 100% the person is guilty... But the CPS say not enougjh evidence to convict..
Sometimes you dont need a trial to know someone is guilty
You must surely realise that you can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?Oh? Why not? Isn’t publicly accusing named individuals of carrying out a serious crime exactly what private citizen Gonalo Amaral did, and aren’t you convinced he was perfectly entitled to do so? So kindly explain why he can and Davel can’t.
You must surely realise that you can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?
Why do you think I can't ..... You are quite wrong
What I'm pointing out is its possible to have proof of guilt but not be able to take it to court
Oh? Why not? Isn’t publicly accusing named individuals of carrying out a serious crime exactly what private citizen Gonalo Amaral did, and aren’t you convinced he was perfectly entitled to do so? So kindly explain why he can and Davel can’t.Well?
If you can't prove it in court you can't publicly announce that someone is guilty without risking being sued. If you're a public official who does it you are breaching the principle of the presumption of innocence.But she was overruled remember? A decision you appeared to agree with, so why are you now arguing against yourself?
The judge of the first instance used exactly that argument to rule against Amaral in the defamation trial.
If you can't prove it in court you can't publicly announce that someone is guilty without risking being sued. If you're a public official who does it you are breaching the principle of the presumption of innocence.
The judge of the first instance used exactly that argument to rule against Amaral in the defamation trial.
You said I cant announce it in public... You are totally wrong.
I can... I would welcome being sued and presenting my evidence in court...
What you donnt understand is its possible to know someone is 100% guilty but not be able to take it to court
What you know is immaterial legally if you can't prove it (as you seem to have discovered). You would risk being sued if you publicly stated that X was a thief. If CB is charged and tried, it can be argued that his trial is unfair because the prosecutor declared him guilty before he was arrested.
Oh? Why not? Isn’t publicly accusing named individuals of carrying out a serious crime exactly what private citizen Gonalo Amaral did, and aren’t you convinced he was perfectly entitled to do so? So kindly explain why he can and Davel can’t.bumping for G-Unit.
What you know is immaterial legally if you can't prove it (as you seem to have discovered). You would risk being sued if you publicly stated that X was a thief. If CB is charged and tried, it can be argued that his trial is unfair because the prosecutor declared him guilty before he was arrested.Did Amaral prove the McCanns hid Madeleine’s body?
This is what Harrison, the UK's national search advisor, recommended;
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.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
Most of the arguments have focussed on the difference between 'evidential' and 'merely intelligence'. Those who wish to dismiss the dog alerts have concentrated on emphasising that alerts such as the ones to the McCann's clothes are not evidential. The argument is that they can therefore be ignored.
I argue that those alerts are still useful. Intelligence isn't something that can or should be ignored and what the alerts to the clothing tell us is that they are contaminated by the target scent. That needs to be accepted and explained.
bumping for G-Unit.
I'm not interested in arguing about McCann v Amaral, I'm discussing the likelyhood of Wolters breaching Brueckner's human rights.
Why do you think I can't ..... You are quite wrong"Can" or "can't"?
What I'm pointing out is its possible to have proof of guilt but not be able to take it to court
I'm not interested in arguing about McCann v Amaral, I'm discussing the likelyhood of Wolters breaching Brueckner's human rights.I'm really not surprised you don't want to talk about Amaral breaching the McCanns' human rights whilst at the same time making the identical same case for Bruckner against Wolters. it's because your position is IMO entirely contradictory.
I'm really not surprised you don't want to talk about Amaral breaching the McCanns' human rights whilst at the same time making the identical same case for Bruckner against Wolters. it's because your position is IMO entirely contradictory.
Amaral was not a public official, but Wolters is, and that's an important difference.Then as Davel is also not a public official why did you write this to him?
Then as Davel is also not a public official why did you write this to him?
"You must surely realise that you can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?"
Either as a private citizen like Amaral (and Davel) you can't (as you have stated above) or you can (as you have also suggested above!) See the problem now?
There's a difference between Amaral and Davel too. Amaral's opinion was based on facts recorded in the PJ files and publicly available. I don't know what Davel's opinion is based on.Amarals opinion was not based on facts..
Amarals opinion was not based on facts..
The point im making is its possible to know for certain someone is guilty but not be able to orove it in a court of law... That is a fact.... And perhaps that applies to Wolters
Amaral was not a public official, but Wolters is, and that's an important difference.
Amaral's opinion may not have been based on facts in your opinion, but in the opinion of the Portuguese courts it was;
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Goncalo Amaral refers in the book, in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manha and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation (clauses 27 and 28 of the instruction basis) .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 30
It isn't relevant what Wolters thinks or believes, it's what he says that is relevant.
There's a difference between Amaral and Davel too. Amaral's opinion was based on facts recorded in the PJ files and publicly available. I don't know what Davel's opinion is based on.@)(++(* you really are unbelievable. If you don't know what Davel's opinion is based on, why are you telling him categorically that he can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?
https://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media/137337/police-law-defamation.pdfI like this part:
@)(++(* you really are unbelievable. If you don't know what Davel's opinion is based on, why are you telling him categorically that he can't publicly name this person and state that they are a thief?
I like this part:
"You are presumed to be of good character"
Does that apply to a convicted rapist and paedophile I wonder...?
Amaral's opinion may not have been based on facts in your opinion, but in the opinion of the Portuguese courts it was;
80. The facts related to the criminal investigation of Madeleine McCann's disappearance that the defendant Goncalo Amaral refers in the book, in an interview with the newspaper Correio da Manha and in the documentary are mostly facts that occurred and are documented in this investigation (clauses 27 and 28 of the instruction basis) .
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0 page 30
It isn't relevant what Wolters thinks or believes, it's what he says that is relevant.
Youve misunderstood the statement... It says based mainly on facts... That makes a difference.....but in fact they wete not facts. Do you really understand what is meant by proven facts... I dont. Perhaps you could explain and also explain what the caveat.. Alinia... as I recall means.. It doesn't appear in the other proven facts
The proven facts are decided upon by the judge and given to the lawyers. If there are no objections they become the agreed facts and are used by the judge to reach their judgement. In this case the judge was Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, the judge of the first instance.
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/ReadingFacts_21_01_2015.htm
Where does the word 'alinia' appear?
We haven't discussed Grime's dogs for a few days and I stumbled across the case below whilst searching for something else.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/09/cadaver-dogs-alerted-at-home-of-man-whose-wife-disappeared-8-years-ago-fbi-consultant-says.html
Updated: Sep. 01, 2020, 5:44 p.m. | Published: Sep. 01, 2020, 4:37 p.m.
Two cadaver dogs alerted on suspected traces of human decomposition and blood during a search eight years ago at the Cumberland County home of a man whose wife disappeared, a consultant to the FBI testified Tuesday afternoon.
Martin Grimes, who testified via video feed from his home in Oxford, England, said one of his dogs, Morse, alerted on an ax in the basement of Hap Seiders’ house on Willow Mill Park Road in Silver Spring Township during the search in July 2012.
Grimes said Morse, who was trained to detect latent odors of the decomposition of human remains, also alerted in the center of the basement, first and second-floor bathrooms, plumbing access panels and on a wool mask beneath a safe in an office.
His other dog, Keela, trained in the detection of minute traces of human blood, alerted on a stainless-steel knife in the drawer of a cabinet in the master bedroom, Grimes said.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Courtney Hair LaRue is claiming Seiders, 66, who is on trial for homicide, killed his wife, Rabihan, 53, in late March 2012 and burned her body in the home’s fireplace.
Defense attorney George Matangos is countering that Rabihan might not be dead but could instead have fled the U.S. with $3 million worth of her husband’s property, including a cache of gold coins.
Under Matangos’s questioning, Grimes said the dogs did not alert on the fireplace where LaRue claims Rabihan Seiders’ corpse was incinerated. Matangos also raised the idea that the dogs’ alerts were “false positives.” Grimes said both dogs, which have since died, had track records of accuracy.
Dr. Susan Marvin, an FBI metallurgist, testified under questioning by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Robinson that three rivets found in box of ashes seized from the Seiders home in April 2012 came from clothing produced by the firm Brittania.
A metal zipper found in the same box couldn’t be tied to any specific clothing line, Marvin said.
On cross-examination, Marvin said she could not tell whether the rivets, which had been in a fire, came from male or female clothing since Brittania produces both. She said it appeared the rivets had been attached to a thick material, perhaps denim or leather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither a living Rabihan nor her corpse has ever been located. Her daughter lied to the original investigation team. The prosecution's murder case was not consistent the dogs' alerts.
Hap Seiders was acquitted of all charges.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/09/jury-acquits-cumberland-county-man-accused-of-killing-wife-who-disappeared-in-2012.html
We haven't discussed Grime's dogs for a few days and I stumbled across the case below whilst searching for something else.I guess this proves the adage that without corroborating forensic evidence the dog alerts are basically worthless as evidence in themslves.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/09/cadaver-dogs-alerted-at-home-of-man-whose-wife-disappeared-8-years-ago-fbi-consultant-says.html
Updated: Sep. 01, 2020, 5:44 p.m. | Published: Sep. 01, 2020, 4:37 p.m.
Two cadaver dogs alerted on suspected traces of human decomposition and blood during a search eight years ago at the Cumberland County home of a man whose wife disappeared, a consultant to the FBI testified Tuesday afternoon.
Martin Grimes, who testified via video feed from his home in Oxford, England, said one of his dogs, Morse, alerted on an ax in the basement of Hap Seiders’ house on Willow Mill Park Road in Silver Spring Township during the search in July 2012.
Grimes said Morse, who was trained to detect latent odors of the decomposition of human remains, also alerted in the center of the basement, first and second-floor bathrooms, plumbing access panels and on a wool mask beneath a safe in an office.
His other dog, Keela, trained in the detection of minute traces of human blood, alerted on a stainless-steel knife in the drawer of a cabinet in the master bedroom, Grimes said.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Courtney Hair LaRue is claiming Seiders, 66, who is on trial for homicide, killed his wife, Rabihan, 53, in late March 2012 and burned her body in the home’s fireplace.
Defense attorney George Matangos is countering that Rabihan might not be dead but could instead have fled the U.S. with $3 million worth of her husband’s property, including a cache of gold coins.
Under Matangos’s questioning, Grimes said the dogs did not alert on the fireplace where LaRue claims Rabihan Seiders’ corpse was incinerated. Matangos also raised the idea that the dogs’ alerts were “false positives.” Grimes said both dogs, which have since died, had track records of accuracy.
Dr. Susan Marvin, an FBI metallurgist, testified under questioning by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Robinson that three rivets found in box of ashes seized from the Seiders home in April 2012 came from clothing produced by the firm Brittania.
A metal zipper found in the same box couldn’t be tied to any specific clothing line, Marvin said.
On cross-examination, Marvin said she could not tell whether the rivets, which had been in a fire, came from male or female clothing since Brittania produces both. She said it appeared the rivets had been attached to a thick material, perhaps denim or leather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither a living Rabihan nor her corpse has ever been located. Her daughter lied to the original investigation team. The prosecution's murder case was not consistent the dogs' alerts.
Hap Seiders was acquitted of all charges.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/09/jury-acquits-cumberland-county-man-accused-of-killing-wife-who-disappeared-in-2012.html
Hey Misty, I'll tell you what, I will bet anything you wish (maybe all the gold coins in Kyrgyzstan) that Rabihan will never be seen alive anywhere in the world.
Just my gut feeling after reading the court papers on this case last year.
Hey Misty, I'll tell you what, I will bet anything you wish (maybe all the gold coins in Kyrgyzstan) that Rabihan will never be seen alive anywhere in the world.
Just my gut feeling after reading the court papers on this case last year.
Well, you're quite wrong.
I saw her in Costco with Bianca Jones & Jeanette Zapata.
Forget the bet - what about the alerts? And what did you make of the daughter's reaction to her stepfather being cleared?
Morse alerted to multiple places in the home, consistent with the disappearance of a woman who has never been seen since.
I believe the daughter said she still cared for Hap even after everything, strange comments but what significance does it have, if you look at all the evidence and you still believe Morse was incorrect and Haps wife is living the life of Riley in Kyrgyzstan then I really don't know what to say.
Its one of the worst cases of Miscarriage of Justice I have ever seen. Victims blood in carpet, human bones in ashes in a box, the victims dna on a knife, cadaver dog alerts, past history of violence.
It shows justice is all about who can sell a story to jury better.
Keela & Morse can't tell you when the blood on the carpet & kitchen knife was deposited. The mere fact that Morse didn't alert to the fireplace where it's alleged Rabihan's body was cremated just doesn't cut it in my book and neither does Grime's explanation for this failure. Once again there were just too many alerts for them all to be credible.
I am limited by US Media laws regarding the articles I can access. Do you know why it took 7 years for this case to reach trial? Was the daughter, in whose name the coins were deposited, ever properly investigated? I am suspicious of her relationship with/feelings towards her stepfather.
Honest question, after reading about this case do you yourself believe that Rabihan was not killed in that house and she did indeed flee to Kyrgyzstan. If so how do you explain the human bones that were found?
I honestly don't know if she was killed in the house without first knowing why she took the coins and what she planned to do with them. Hap was certainly not a model citizen or husband by any stretch of the imagination.
Were the bones human? (I thought I read some were chicken bones) If so, how was it determined the fragments belonged to a female when a DNA profile couldn't be obtained? Why didn't Morse alert to the fireplace if it contained human bone fragments?
I honestly don't know if she was killed in the house without first knowing why she took the coins and what she planned to do with them. Hap was certainly not a model citizen or husband by any stretch of the imagination.
Were the bones human? (I thought I read some were chicken bones) If so, how was it determined the fragments belonged to a female when a DNA profile couldn't be obtained? Why didn't Morse alert to the fireplace if it contained human bone fragments?
The first expert witness for the state testified they were human bones from a forearm, hand and fingers, the second expert witness for the state testified they were human bones but were so degraded that no dna could be obtained. The expert witness called by the defence also said they were human bones but testified there was no way to tell if they were of male or female origin, as if its OK to have any human bones found in your house.
So with that in mind, how would you explain the human bones that were found?
Grandma's Urn.
Do you believe that Eleanor?
I believe there was serious Reasonable Doubt.
The first expert witness for the state testified they were human bones from a forearm, hand and fingers, the second expert witness for the state testified they were human bones but were so degraded that no dna could be obtained. The expert witness called by the defence also said they were human bones but testified there was no way to tell if they were of male or female origin, as if its OK to have any human bones found in your house.
So with that in mind, how would you explain the human bones that were found?
OK which evidence supplied during the trial made you reach the conclusion there was reasonable doubt that Hap killed his wife and burned the remains.
OK which evidence supplied during the trial made you reach the conclusion there was reasonable doubt that Hap killed his wife and burned the remains.
The Prosecution failed to prove their case. That is a fact.
No, I know that, but I didn't understand how the jury reached their decision, you share their view so I would like to try and understand what the thought process was. It may give me a better perspective if someone were to explain to me how the evidence failed to convince the jury.
I am not familiar with the case. But it really doesn't matter what Eleanor thinks. The only important opinion is that of the Court from which I take it he walked a free man.
It was a conglomeration of careless investigating.
How so?
If you believe courts and juries always reach the correct decision then I have news for you. Many a guilty person has been acquitted and many innocent people have spent decades behind bars.
Before everyone starts defending Hap just because Grime was involved giving evidence against him then spare a thought for the victim and her family, the evidence was overwhelming against Hap but he had the money to pay for a good legal defence. Money talks when it comes to justice especially in the USA.
The thread title asks if dog alerts are evidence. In themselves they are not and I think everyone is aware of that.
This is also the McCann board.
So hypothetically commenting about the dogs' performance in other cases is well on topic. Going further and dissecting the minutiae of a particular case unrelated to Madeleine's in my opinion, is not.
They found nothing to prove he had done it. The dogs were irrelevant in my opinion.
Let's pretend Martin Grime never showed up and no cadaver dog evidence was presented before court. Let's look at the evidence.Yeh, but apart from that.....?
Hap was convicted the previous year of beating his wife to a point where medical treatment was needed.
During the hearings about a protection order Rabihan testified that Hap had threatened to kill her and dump her body in a river
Rabihan told her daughter that if she was found dead to look at Hap as the culprit.
The last contact Rabihan had with anyone apart from Hap was March 24th, Hap never reported Rabihan missing. Rabihan’s daughter did this in mid April.
Hap told Police he dropped off Rabihan at Trump plaza, Atlantic City on March 28th, but when CCTV was checked only Hap was visible in the car.
Rabihan never used any of her credit cards, casino accounts,paid any bills or renewed any documents after March 2012. No CCTV of Rabihan in Atlantic City.
When Rabihan’s daughter went to Haps house after she was missing and saw her mothers jewellery still at the house she knew her mother had died. Rabihan never went anywhere without her rings.
During a search of the house, blood belonging to Rabihan was found in the bedroom, a carving knife with Rabihan’s dna was found in the bedside cabinet and human remains were found in a box near the fireplace.
Neighbours reporting that the chimney at Haps house was smoking for 3 days constantly, this was reported as out of character.
During this same period the blinds were drawn all over the house and there were no comings or goings at all. Hap was usually very active coming and going from the house.
In the ten years since Rabihan went missing there has been no contact with her daughter with whom she shared a very close relationship.
No sightings of Rabihan anywhere in the world since March 2012. Its is very hard to just disappear of the face of the earth and still be alive these days, IMO
Yeh, but apart from that.....?
Wrong if they are heard in open court they are evidence.
Well Misty brought this case up yesterday so take it up with her not me.
Check it out! https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11174.msg679921#msg679921
Misty's post is bang on topic as it refers to dogs and evidence.
You are now deflecting from topic because you have expanded from the discussion on dogs and evidence into discussion of the full case.
I'm sorry you don't seem to be aware of that and I am sorry you are so dismissive of my post.
Misty first post was on topic but her second post expanded other aspects of the case regarding the daughter which had nothing to do with dog evidence.
"Forget the bet - what about the alerts? And what did you make of the daughter's reaction to her stepfather being cleared?"
I responded to this post. Its called a discussion.
Okay. No search was made for her outside of America. Interpol weren't informed and no attention paid to Kerzakistan? from whence she came.
The lady who tested the burning of never went anywhere near the real fireplace and based her assumptions on any other old fireplace that might have been similar.
Temperatures could only have been half of those in an incinerator.
The chimney only smoked for three days.
The box of bones was left by the fireplace. Very careless. But only a few of them, apparently.
The Dogs. Irrelevant. You need more than that. And they didn't alert to the fireplace itself.
The Prosecution failed to prove it's case.
But only on your terms.
Where did you get this info from, I am pretty sure I read that the FBI applied for any information from the Kyrgyzstan authorities in the following years from 2012.
But its OK, let me know when Rabihan turns up safe and well.
Her daughter will be very pleased to hear from her.
Its been 10 long years for her.
Eh? What do you mean?
Misty asks for my opinion and I gave it.
You only want a discussion about what you think. Some of us have other ideas.
Misty first post was on topic but her second post expanded other aspects of the case regarding the daughter which had nothing to do with dog evidence.
"Forget the bet - what about the alerts? And what did you make of the daughter's reaction to her stepfather being cleared?"
I responded to this post. Its called a discussion.
And then there was The Casey Anthony Trial, also involving Cadaver Dogs to some large extent. Judge Belvin Perry Junior sorted that, along with some of the American Dog Handlers who actually told the truth.
The Prosecution lied and disseminated throughout, forgetting to mention pertinent evidence, much like this lot in The Hap Case.
Casey Anthony was also acquitted.
In circumstances like these it simply won't do.
In your opinion ,how did Caylee Anthony, who was found with duct tape on her skull, die?
I’ll put it out there, my opinion is she is as innocent as Hap Sieders is.
What's your theory?
The Prosecution failed to prove their case. I watched that Trial live, from start to finish and it was a balls up. The Prosecution lied from the beginning to the end. Why did they do that, do you think? Why try to convict someone on their lies.
I don't have to have a Theory. And what would that have to do with anything anyway?
Do you want to know about the time when Cadaver Dogs were on the up and idiots thought that this was The New Science? Guess what. They aren't.
Prosecutions built on lies should always fail. Even if The Prosecution is right. Bloody well prove it.
I am afraid advocates who lie in a court of law would face very strict censure, please provide some instances where the prosecution lied in court in the Anthony case.
Mainly lies about Google and how to make Chloroform, which is remarkably easy.
No one bothered to pursue The Prosecution for lying. Casey Anthony was acquitted so there was no need.
But The Jury said that the lies were what swung it. And as it should be. If you can't win a case without lying then you have no case.
If you mean the testimony of John Dennis Bradley regarding computer searches for chloroform, Bradley himself actually realised his software was faulty and rather than 84 searches there was only one for chloroform. He notified the prosecution team and the matter was raised between both parties and the judge. Hardly lying from start to finish.
PS This is what the judge said about the case some years after.
I thought the state had proved its case. I thought, while they may have had some flaws in their case, that there was a high probability that (Casey) would be found guilty of some form of homicide, and that did not occur.
Jolly well done on the Google thingy. Did you Google it?
However, it could have been Casey's Mother or Father who did that. They all used that computer. And Casey often wasn't there in the house.
Meanwhile A Cadaver Dog found something suspicious by the swimming pool which might have been Urine because Cadaver Dogs react to Urine. Oh Really.
In the end Casey Anthony was acquitted.
Google is your friend. But I did remember it as well.
I asked for this cite before about Cadaver dogs reacting to urine, you said at the time you had the cite but didn't want to give it to me.
She was indeed acquitted.
Google is your friend. But I did remember it as well.
I asked for this cite before about Cadaver dogs reacting to urine, you said at the time you had the cite but didn't want to give it to me.
She was indeed acquitted.
It seems urine contains cadaverine....so its reasonable for the dogs to react to it
Not really, IMO a dog would be no use if he routinely alerted to urine, any bathroom would produce an alert, us men are not the most accurate as I am sure you know Davel.
I have never seen it claimed by a handler, that's why I would like to see the cite if possible.
Sperm. Grime said that.
Eleanor I am sure you are aware sperm is not urine.
Sperm like Urine is a body fluid.
Not really, IMO a dog would be no use if he routinely alerted to urine, any bathroom would produce an alert, us men are not the most accurate as I am sure you know Davel.
I have never seen it claimed by a handler, that's why I would like to see the cite if possible.
Urine contains cadaverine.. The dog will alert to the smallest amount.. Semen contains cadaverine.. All that is factual.
I dont see why its unreasoble to make the conclusion that dogs wil alert to both of these. Do you have a cite they don't
This is what makes the alerts themselves unreliable.
Are there any published articles to show dogs will not alert to urine. I don't believe there is. If dog handlers want their alerts to be taken seriously they should. Grime is not a scientist and from a scientific perspective his validation is very sloppy.
Not really, IMO a dog would be no use if he routinely alerted to urine, any bathroom would produce an alert, us men are not the most accurate as I am sure you know Davel.
I have never seen it claimed by a handler, that's why I would like to see the cite if possible.
I have read that it is a mix of cadaveric voc's that make up the odour of a dead body, not just cadaverine.
You are quite welcome to believe cadaver dogs alert to urine and semen and whatever else makes you happy.
For me its not complicated, a dog is trained on a certain odour and if he thinks he smells that odour he barks. Thats it. In most cases where a dog has barked a body is found later in the investigation or that person is never found. I could reel off dozens of cases where cadaver dogs have alerted and a body has turned up later or that person is never seen again. Is it fool proof, of course not, dogs will make mistakes just as humans do, but it is used as evidence in at least some countries of the world.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265513330_Cadaver_dogs_Unscientific_myth_or_reliable_biological_devices
*snipped*
The forensic team involved in crime scene investigations, especially in cases where it may be necessary to identify hidden objects or invisible traces, is increasingly integrated with the use of trained dog units to search for decomposing human odors. The cadaver dogs are used to detect and localize hidden human remains or fluids (blood, urine, etc.) due to the high perception of the canine olfactory system and the relative facility with which dogs can be trained and managed (Riezzo et al. 2014). ...
The full citation is available to download (I haven't read it)
May I apologise to you for making you incur the wrath of our Mods because of a question I asked which led the thread off-topic. I didn't think the Seiders case warranted a thread of its own.
Suffice to say Grime was allowed to testify at the trial and his dogs' alerts accepted as evidence. However, I think that his testimony proved of greater benefit to the defence than the prosecution if you believe that the fragments in the fireplace really were human bones. I wonder what happened to the rest of the body?
I have read that it is a mix of cadaveric voc's that make up the odour of a dead body, not just cadaverine.
You are quite welcome to believe cadaver dogs alert to urine and semen and whatever else makes you happy.
For me its not complicated, a dog is trained on a certain odour and if he thinks he smells that odour he barks. Thats it. In most cases where a dog has barked a body is found later in the investigation or that person is never found. I could reel off dozens of cases where cadaver dogs have alerted and a body has turned up later or that person is never seen again. Is it fool proof, of course not, dogs will make mistakes just as humans do, but it is used as evidence in at least some countries of the world.
I think you are easily fooled and lack understanding about evidence.
So there are countless alerts where bodies are later found or thee person has never been found. Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the dogs are only taken to crime scenes where someone has disappeared and death is highly probable.. Lol
I wasn't born yesterday..
Its not a matter of belief its a matter of evidence and there is next to nothing to support cadaver dog alertsIf it is heard in court it is evidence.
If it is heard in court it is evidence.
There is next to nothing to support the validity of the alerts.. Fact. The fact they have been admitted in a tiny number of cases doesn't change that
I repeat
If it is heard in court it is evidence.
Yes sorry Misty I didn't mean to throw you under the bus or dob on you to the higher powers I just thought I would point it out.
I do enjoy engaging you in discussion because its always well thought out, reasoned and never gets nasty. Two people can have differing views and still remain civil I believe.
I don't think Grimes alerts added too much to the mixture but I still believe the evidence was strong enough even without the alerts to gain a conviction. I should point out that all 3 expert witnesses including one for the defence testified that the remains were human, I have no idea long it would take to burn a body but maybe 3 days is enough.
So is any statement whether its true or not.. The fact its evidence gives it no credibility as to its validity. If Kate was called as a witness... And she said the window was open.. That is evidence... Despite there being nothing else to support it
Doing it in a home fireplace is ineffective. Chandler Halderson tried sawing his parents into manageable pieces & burning them in the home fireplace, but it didn't get hot enough, needs lots of chemicals & oxygen pumped in to really get the temperature up. He tried putting a fan in front of the fireplace, it burned a little better but it still wasn't enough, so he gave up & resorted to scattering their remains around the countryside. All they ever found of his mother were her thighs.
The penny has finally dropped.
If Kate was called as a witness to testify in court of law it would indeed be evidence, the jury would then decide its worth.
If dog alerts are heard in a court of law then they are evidence. The jury would decide their worth.
We are finally there.
It must have finally dropped with you.... I understood that from the beginning
You mean you always understood that dog alerts were evidence?You would need to define what you mean by evidence... Evidential value.. Evidential reliability.
Read back this thread you have spent years repeated the mantra dog alerts are not evidence.
Now you say you always believed they were evidence after all.
I wouldn't know, maybe Hap was better than Chandler who knows. All I know is 3 expert witness identified human bones in the home of a woman who disappeared never to be seen again.
You would need to define what you mean by evidence... Evidential value.. Evidential reliability.
In the MM case the alerts do not support the premise Maddie died in the apartment.and are therefore not evidence of death. If I say I saw a ghost last night... Is that evidence a ghost exists.
You are looking at things simplistically.
I believe Mark Bridger burned some & scattered or buried the rest.
Anyway, when I need to get rid of a body I'm trying the Corrie Mckeague method.
I reckon it's probably a 50/50 shot but in desperation I'd be willing to take them odds.
You mean you always understood that dog alerts were evidence?
Read back this thread you have spent years repeated the mantra dog alerts are not evidence.
Now you say you always believed they were evidence after all.
Yea maybe thats what Hap did.
Agreed a body in a landfill is gone.
The definition of evidence is not vagueThey are not evidence in the defined sense because they do not give any weight to the theory Maddie died in the apartment. That's because Grime and Harrison said they have no evidential reliability or value.
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."
If a dog handler testifies that his dog alerted to what he was trained to find this is evidence just as a witness may claim a window was open, or a handwriting expert testifies that in his belief the letter was written by so and so
Why in the MM case do the alerts not support the premise that Maddie died in the apartment?
You are looking at things simplistically.
As you claim I've repeated a mantra could you provide some cites. It's Grime and Harrison who said they had no evidential reliability or value
They are not evidence in the defined sense because they do not give any weight to the theory Maddie died in the apartment. That's because Grime and Harrison said they have no evidential reliability or value.
If a psychic claimed Maddie died in the apartment... Would that be evidence
You think youve made a case that the alerts are admissible evidence....I think youve failed miserably. lets see some more of these many case you claim Post 25
The fact that they were admitted in two cases doesn't mean cadaver alerts are admissible evidence. Post 63
Clearly inadmissible Post 69
From what i can see the alerts in these two cases were incorrectly admitted because they were not challenged Post 89
Doesn't really matter.. An alert as evidence is inadmissible imo and would not have been allowed if challenged post 124
Your opinion is that they are admissible... Mine is that they are not. Don't misrepresent my posts post 344
Is that enough I am sure there are many more on other threads.
They are evidence in the defined sense because the testimony of the dog handler would give weight to the premise that Maddie died in the apt. That's exactly how they are currently used.
You keep repeated Grime saying that but how many times has he testified as an expert witness concerning his dogs alerts.
Physics ramblings are generally not accepted as evidence of anything in the eyes of the law.
You claim I've repeatedly claimed the alerts are not evidence then provided cites showing I'm referring to admissible evidence.. Note the word admissible. The admissibility of the alerts is a highly contentious issue. Just because they have been admitted in a handful of cases does not mean they are deemed admissible generally. Kate statement of course would be admissible in any court.. What does that tell you
You claim I've repeatedly claimed the alerts are not evidence then provided cites showing I'm referring to admissible evidence.. Note the word admissible. The admissibility of the alerts is a highly contentious issue. Just because they have been admitted in a handful of cases does not mean they are deemed admissible generally. Kate statement of course would be admissible in any court.. What does that tell you
You tell me how many times in his career spanning say 20 years.. Grime has testified with his alerts. Is it into double figures... Very unconvincing
Are the defence lawyers aware of Grime's.. And Harrison.. Contradictory statements
Well the premise of this thread was whether dog alerts were admissible in court of law, They clearly are and have been heard many times. I will repeat there is no explicit law which deems dog alerts to be inadmissible, a judge may decree they are on an individual case but he could rule any piece of evidence to be inadmissible including witness statements.
So spell it out, are they evidence, are they admissable evidence because you are giving mixed messages.
It only has to be once but I know of at least four. Defence teams tend to do very extensive discovery process before trials, if we know about Grime maybe they do too.
You say dog alerts are clearly admissible.. That is not true.. . Its also not true they have been used in many cases.. You seem to have a problem with the truth.If they have been heard in a court then they are admissible. They have been heard in at least England, Scotland and the USA. If they were inadmissible they would not be heard in any court ever just like types of hearsay, clairvoyants or psychics. You seem to have a problem with the truth.
The alerts in the MM case give absolutely no support to the idea Maddie died in the apartment.. According to Harrison Grime told the PJ no inference could be drawn from them... That's NO INFERENCE.. How does that support death in the apartment
If they have been heard in a court then they are admissible. They have been heard in at least England, Scotland and the USA. If they were inadmissible they would not be heard in any court ever just like types of hearsay, clairvoyants or psychics. You seem to have a problem with the truth.If they were admissible there would be no grounds to challenge them.. They are potentially admissible.
I am not going over the meaning of inference again, just look up the meaning.
If they were admissible there would be no grounds to challenge them.. They are potentially admissible.
In 2005 Grime said Harrison came up with the idea of using the alerts as intelligence... I wonder if Harrison agrees where Grime has taken this. It will be interesting to see what happens if Wolters shows Maddie did not die in the apartment
Every piece of evidence is potentially admissible. A judge could exclude any evidence he believes is of poor quality or prejudicial.
I will leave the hypotheticals until they are realised but of course the alerts could be wrong. I accept that.