Amaral and the dogs

[ferryman]

There is a huge difference between criticism based on opinion and inconsistencies which are recorded and factual.

The McCanns have not been found guilty of any crime, true. They would have to be charged and tried for that to happen. Even so, they were made arguidos and that didn't happen just because a couple of dogs alerted, there were other reasons too.

Finally, I would be grateful if you would leave analysis of my motives and character out of the debate. I don't accuse you of character defects because it's meaningless, I don't know you and you don't know me.

It was only once Grime set to work with his dogs that suspicion started to fall on the McCanns and their friends.

[G-Unit]

It is in the eye of hard evidence, not the beholder, that Eddie could only "detect" a scent on cuddle-cat after it was hidden in a cupboard, not while he could play with it.

It is in the eye of hard evidence that clothing that, apparently, yielded no scent in the villa became scent-laden in the gym.

There is no logical or coherent reason why clothing should have been inspected at all, let alone twice.

By comparison, heated debate about whether the McCanns entered the villa through the "front" door or the "back" door really pales into insignificance ....

A prime example of what I just said to Alfred. You aren't an expert on how these dogs work. Grime is. He trained  and handled them and did the work in Portugal and then gave his assessment of what happened. Your opinions of the dog's work is of no importance, it's just a layman's opinion with no factual basis.

The discussion about doors is based on inconsistent witness statements, not on opinions of which door someone used.

The PJ were suspicious of the McCann's story before the dogs were used.

[ferryman]

A prime example of what I just said to Alfred. You aren't an expert on how these dogs work. Grime is. He trained  and handled them and did the work in Portugal and then gave his assessment of what happened. Your opinions of the dog's work is of no importance, it's just a layman's opinion with no factual basis.

The discussion about doors is based on inconsistent witness statements, not on opinions of which door someone used.

The PJ were suspicious of the McCann's story before the dogs were used.

I think you'll find that my opinion of how the dogs work (in conjunction with their handler) is widely shared.

The inquiry by Wiltshire Police into the Haut de la Garenne fiasco was deeply scathing of the role of Grime with his dogs.

[stephen25000]

what difference doesnit make?  You still use them to continually discredit the objects of your contempt.  Why do you do this when, subject to the most intense scrutiny, the McCanns have been found guilt of no crime?   It is sheer hypocrisy to lambast one set of people for criticising Grime and the dogs whilst having no issue whatsoever with another set of people picking holes in the McCanns and their friends day in, day out.

This case starts and finishes with the mccanns, unless proved otherwise.

[stephen25000]

I think you'll find that my opinion of how the dogs work (in conjunction with their handler) is widely shared.

The inquiry by Wiltshire Police into the Haut de la Garenne fiasco was deeply scathing of the role of Grime with his dogs.

Provide the link to the report.

[Brietta]

Provide the link to the report.

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

I have posted it quite a few times as have others ... guess what, I Googled it ... pity your search engine seems to be kaput.

[stephen25000]

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

I have posted it quite a few times as have others ... guess what, I Googled it ... pity your search engine seems to be kaput.

I would recommend very strongly that you watch events unfold in the Abuse Inquiry.

The story of the care home is far from over, as the involvement of those in authority who have covered up child abuse.

[Brietta]

This case starts and finishes with the mccanns, unless proved otherwise.

The case starts with the discovery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann ... the case will finish either when she is found or the person who took her is found.
It seems the opinion of the PJ and SY is that finding Madeleine and/or finding her abductor is not an impossibility ... I look forward to the case being resolved when she id found.

[ferryman]

Provide the link to the report.

3.10.11 We now deal with the introduction of Martin GRIME and his Enhanced
Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) to Operation Rectangle. Operation
Haven has established through enquiry with the NPIA, that
Martin GRIME was an ACPO accredited dog handler whilst he was a
serving police officer, but forfeited accreditation upon his retirement in
July 2007. We mentioned that Mr GRIME remains on the ACPO
accredited list of experts though his EVRD is no longer accredited by
ACPO. Whilst Martin GRIME’s original contract to Jersey was for five
days, his actual deployment lasted for 130 days.
3.10.12 The forensic review carried out by    X of the NPIA
questioned the presence of Martin GRIME on site for such a long
time. X , was informed that Martin GRIME had been
acting as a Deputy Crime Scene Manager to Forensic Service
Manager X , at the request of DCO HARPER. The forensic
review noted Martin GRIME’s lack of formal training or qualifications
to perform the role of Deputy Forensic Service Manager and that to
utilise him in this role ‘cannot be recognised as good practice’. The
review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons
interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is
accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that
any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated.
In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference
for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent
use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of
DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a
significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to
be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any
intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search.
This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and
Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time. To
Page 116 of 383


Supervision Highly Confidential – Personal Information
CO POWER’s credit, there is an e-mail exchange between him and
DCO HARPER dated 10 May 2008 in which CO POWER raises the
question of the continued use of Martin GRIME and his EVRD. He
says ‘Lenny, it has struck me for some time that he [Mr GRIME] is an
expensive resource who has more than his fair shared of down time’.
DCO HARPER replied in the same e-mail string ‘to be fair to him
though, he hasn’t got much down time as he is also the NPIA search
coordinator and is fully employed’. CO POWER replies ‘Thanks.
Better understood now’. CO POWER does not appear to pursue the
matter further.
3.10.15 However, DCO HARPER’s reply was not factually accurate.
Martin GRIME was neither an NPIA search advisor nor fully
employed. In his statement, Martin GRIME states that ‘I am a Subject
Matter Expert registered with the UK National Policing Improvement
Agency and specialist homicide canine search advisor… I advise
Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the
operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide
investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable
evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training’. His expertise lay
purely in the use of dogs in searching, not as a 'search co-ordinator'.
3.10.16 OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER
accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog
handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again,
Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This
Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any
further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the
investigation.
3.10.17 OFFICER X concludes ‘decisions should be made based on
professional policing judgement and evidence. When you look at the
facts, the excavation and searching of Haut De La Garenne… was
not justified’.


Operation Rectangle

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

[stephen25000]

The case starts with the discovery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann ... the case will finish either when she is found or the person who took her is found.
It seems the opinion of the PJ and SY is that finding Madeleine and/or finding her abductor is not an impossibility ... I look forward to the case being resolved when she id found.

Yet the crime is unknown.


As for the abductor, that is merely a belief, started by the mccanns, and for which no forensic or other evidence exists at all that could bring a conviction, let alone an arrest.

[Brietta]

Yet the crime is unknown.


As for the abductor, that is merely a belief, started by the mccanns, and for which no forensic or other evidence exists at all that could bring a conviction, let alone an arrest.

Madeleine McCann is missing.  Even as we speak two highly professional National policing bodies are looking for an abductor after an in-depth assessment lasting years.  That is good enough for me.

Imo one of the failures of the Amaral investigation was failing to find out what happened to Madeleine... another was muddying the waters of future investigations by his misinterpretation of the lack of significance of the dogs and the little forensic evidence not destroyed by initial amateurish collection procedures.

[stephen25000]

3.10.11 We now deal with the introduction of Martin GRIME and his Enhanced
Victim Recovery Dog (EVRD) to Operation Rectangle. Operation
Haven has established through enquiry with the NPIA, that
Martin GRIME was an ACPO accredited dog handler whilst he was a
serving police officer, but forfeited accreditation upon his retirement in
July 2007. We mentioned that Mr GRIME remains on the ACPO
accredited list of experts though his EVRD is no longer accredited by
ACPO. Whilst Martin GRIME’s original contract to Jersey was for five
days, his actual deployment lasted for 130 days.
3.10.12 The forensic review carried out by    X of the NPIA
questioned the presence of Martin GRIME on site for such a long
time. X , was informed that Martin GRIME had been
acting as a Deputy Crime Scene Manager to Forensic Service
Manager X , at the request of DCO HARPER. The forensic
review noted Martin GRIME’s lack of formal training or qualifications
to perform the role of Deputy Forensic Service Manager and that to
utilise him in this role ‘cannot be recognised as good practice’. The
review also noted that ‘there was concern from some persons
interviewed that too much reliance had been placed on the dogs’. It is
accepted that dogs are ‘presumptive screening assets’ only and that
any alerts or indications they give must be forensically corroborated.
In addition, it is a fact that there were no concise terms of reference
for the deployment of Martin GRIME and his EVRD or his subsequent
use as a search advisor, apparently with the support of
DCO HARPER.
3.10.13 CO POWER himself states ‘the search dog seemed to play a
significant role in determining whether a specific location needed to
be examined further. I am not an expert on dogs or what they do’.
3.10.14 Again, there is a distinct lack of documentary evidence to show any
intrusive supervision of the SIO with regard to the continued search.
This Inquiry concludes that the actions of DCO HARPER and
Martin GRIME went unsupervised for some considerable time. To
Page 116 of 383


Supervision Highly Confidential – Personal Information
CO POWER’s credit, there is an e-mail exchange between him and
DCO HARPER dated 10 May 2008 in which CO POWER raises the
question of the continued use of Martin GRIME and his EVRD. He
says ‘Lenny, it has struck me for some time that he [Mr GRIME] is an
expensive resource who has more than his fair shared of down time’.
DCO HARPER replied in the same e-mail string ‘to be fair to him
though, he hasn’t got much down time as he is also the NPIA search
coordinator and is fully employed’. CO POWER replies ‘Thanks.
Better understood now’. CO POWER does not appear to pursue the
matter further.
3.10.15 However, DCO HARPER’s reply was not factually accurate.
Martin GRIME was neither an NPIA search advisor nor fully
employed. In his statement, Martin GRIME states that ‘I am a Subject
Matter Expert registered with the UK National Policing Improvement
Agency and specialist homicide canine search advisor… I advise
Domestic and International Law enforcement agencies on the
operational deployment of police dogs in the role of homicide
investigation. I develop methods of detecting forensically recoverable
evidence by the use of dogs and facilitate training’. His expertise lay
purely in the use of dogs in searching, not as a 'search co-ordinator'.
3.10.16 OFFICER X notes that during conversation with X, CO POWER
accepted that ‘the dog was ‘probably unreliable’ and that the dog
handler, GRIME, had too much influence over the enquiry, again,
Mr POWER didn’t say how he managed or dealt with that issue’. This
Inquiry has been unable to establish whether CO POWER made any
further attempts to supervise the SIO in this key part of the
investigation.
3.10.17 OFFICER X concludes ‘decisions should be made based on
professional policing judgement and evidence. When you look at the
facts, the excavation and searching of Haut De La Garenne… was
not justified’.


Operation Rectangle

http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20WiltshireOperationHavenRedacted%2020081112%20JN.pdf

Unfortunately ferryman, the child abuse scandal is far from over.

I suggest that what really happened in Jersey and elsewhere, will be revealed in due course, as will those who colluded in covering it up.

[ferryman]

Unfortunately ferryman, the child abuse scandal is far from over.

I suggest that what really happened in Jersey and elsewhere, will be revealed in due course, as will those who colluded in covering it up.

Somewhere in that Operation Havern report, too, you will find confirmation that Eddie, indeed, reacted to a coconut ....

[stephen25000]

Madeleine McCann is missing.  Even as we speak two highly professional National policing bodies are looking for an abductor after an in-depth assessment lasting years.  That is good enough for me.

Imo one of the failures of the Amaral investigation was failing to find out what happened to Madeleine... another was muddying the waters of future investigations by his misinterpretation of the lack of significance of the dogs and the little forensic evidence not destroyed by initial amateurish collection procedures.

I'm, afraid to disappoint you, but when has accidental death been disproved.

Likewise, they can look for an abductor until the cows come home, but it doesn't mean one ever existed.

There is no substitute for facts.

Now tell me, where is there factual indisputable  evidence of abduction ?

[stephen25000]

Somewhere in that Operation Havern report, too, you will find confirmation that Eddie, indeed, reacted to a coconut ....

That's an old one ferryman.

What about secondary transfer ?

It would be hardly surprising in the circumstances.