Dog Search 5A

[G-Unit]

Going back to the OP, I think we can all agree that the dogs' examination of the parents' bedroom was incomplete because the beds were not positioned as they had been on 3/5/07. This means that crucial forensics may have been missed, verifying Eddie's alert near the wardrobe.

If Eddie could smell a source under the beds he would have tried to get under there as he did with the sofa. Instead;

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

[misty]

If Eddie could smell a source under the beds he would have tried to get under there as he did with the sofa. Instead;

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

Did Eddie attempt to get into the cupboard where CC was situated  when barking with his head in the air?

Keela was not given the opportunity to examine the area under the bed.

[Mr Gray]

Did Eddie attempt to get into the cupboard where CC was situated  when barking with his head in the air?

Keela was not given the opportunity to examine the area under the bed.

  imo...there was no alert to CC

[misty]

Have we?
How do you know that any video footage is complete?

Fair enough, it's not complete. However, the sofa in the lounge was moved to allow Keela access behind it & she corroborated Eddie's alert. We don't see the same situation in the bedroom, despite much attention being paid to the floor in front of the wardrobe.

[misty]

  imo...there was no alert to CC

I agree - but I don't see any difference between Eddie's alert by the wardrobe & his second alert supposedly to the cupboard containing CC.

[Alice Purjorick]

Fair enough, it's not complete. However, the sofa in the lounge was moved to allow Keela access behind it & she corroborated Eddie's alert. We don't see the same situation in the bedroom, despite much attention being paid to the floor in front of the wardrobe.

Say no more!

[Robittybob1]

Say no more!

Have finally ended your case?

[Alice Purjorick]

Have finally ended your case?

There seems to be a word or two missing there, old stick.

[Robittybob1]

There seems to be a word or two missing there, old stick.

I must have been running on empty. 

[Innominate]

Did Eddie attempt to get into the cupboard where CC was situated  when barking with his head in the air?

Keela was not given the opportunity to examine the area under the bed.

The detailed remarks about testing of the car key card at:

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

appear to show that Eddie and Keela will react to the same stimulus i.e. dried blood. It would seem logical that the blood could be from a living person or a dead person, and Mr Grimes appears to confirm this.

This appears to indicate the 'dog alerts' do not need a significant period of time for the 'scent of death' to develop!

It would appear that if blood was present from a dead person, and the dead person was removed fairly quickly, then as long as sufficient blood had time to dry in situ both dogs could 'alert' (to the blood).

This means there does not have to be any delay (1hr to 1.5hr) for cadavarine, etc, to develop and be detected.

It would also mean there is no proof anyone died, but equally if someone did die, then swift removal of the body could still have led to both the dog alerts, providing any blood present dried in situ before being cleaned up.

Alternatively, if a body was moved from A to B and bled, then moved from B to C both dogs could still 'alert' if the blood dried in situ.

Corrections welcome.

Once again this does not indicate any particular theory is more likely than any other theory

[Robittybob1]

The detailed remarks about testing of the car key card at:

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

appear to show that Eddie and Keela will react to the same stimulus i.e. dried blood. It would seem logical that the blood could be from a living person or a dead person, and Mr Grimes appears to confirm this.

This appears to indicate the 'dog alerts' do not need a significant period of time for the 'scent of death' to develop!

It would appear that if blood was present from a dead person, and the dead person was removed fairly quickly, then as long as sufficient blood had time to dry in situ both dogs could 'alert' (to the blood).

This means there does not have to be any delay (1hr to 1.5hr) for cadavarine, etc, to develop and be detected.

It would also mean there is no proof anyone died, but equally if someone did die, then swift removal of the body could still have led to both the dog alerts, providing any blood present dried in situ before being cleaned up.

Alternatively, if a body was moved from A to B and bled, then moved from B to C both dogs could still 'alert' if the blood dried in situ.

Corrections welcome.

Once again this does not indicate any particular theory is more likely than any other theory

I can't see the logic of having a cadaver dog if every alert could just be to fresh or decomposed blood from a living person.    Well I suppose if all the alerts were to blood one of the outcomes could be the person is still alive as you can bleed without dying.

[G-Unit]

I can't see the logic of having a cadaver dog if every alert could just be to fresh or decomposed blood from a living person.    Well I suppose if all the alerts were to blood one of the outcomes could be the person is still alive as you can bleed without dying.

The bedroom alert in 5A wasn't caused by blood.

[Innominate]

I can't see the logic of having a cadaver dog if every alert could just be to fresh or decomposed blood from a living person.    Well I suppose if all the alerts were to blood one of the outcomes could be the person is still alive as you can bleed without dying.

This is what Mr Grime has to say:

Q 'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
A The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

The bedroom alert in 5A wasn't caused by blood.

How are you certain of that?

Grime clearly indicates, in a stale air situation, the source of the alert could be anywhere in the room, which would include under the bed area. When the cars were searched EVRD did not alert at both the boot door seal and the front door seal.

[pathfinder73]

No blood was detected on the clothes by Keela. No blood was detected in the parent's bedroom by Keela but Eddie who detects cadaver scent alerted.

From a search report before the dogs arrived in Portugal.

The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm 23/07/2007

[Miss Taken Identity]

Of course we have to accept that the dogs did alert to smells they were familiar with and they did that.  Trying to prove they didn't search properly or missed bits doesn't make any difference. The fact they were sent for and did alert in a case where a child was missing, imo it is only prudent to build a circumstantial evidence  case, and work your way back...